SXSW: Al Gore Talks Surveillance Culture, Spider Goats

Nerval's Lobster writes "Former vice president Al Gore sat down with Wall Street Journal columnist Walt Mossberg at this year's SXSW conference to talk about the future — specifically, what Gore sees as the dangers and opportunities awaiting the planet for the next few years. Gore drilled down into what he referred to as the "stalker economy." The rise of apps such as SnapChat, which allows smartphone users to control how long friends can view messages, is emblematic of people reaching the "gag point" with pervasive recording and surveillance by government and business. "Our democracy has been hacked," Gore also told his audience, referring to the U.S. Constitution as "our operating system." While there's never been a "golden age" of American Democracy, he added, the perils emerging today are new. "If a Congressman or Senator has to spend five hours a day begging special interests or rich people for money," he said, they'll be more concerned about how what they're saying will appeal to those interests—rather than their constituents. In yet another tangent, Gore railed against genetic engineering, including Spider Goats, which are goats with spliced spider DNA that allows them to secrete spider silk along with their milk. The goats breed, extending that trait to future generations. Gore sees such things as a case of science run amok, alternately creepy and scary."

Comments

Mmmm

[gagol]

Spider milk. I wonder what it tastes like...

Re:Mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

An upside-down blowjay.

Re:Mmmm

[rmdingler]

Why not make an Al Gore Spider Goatse joke and be pwn with it.

Re:Mmmm

[JBMcB]

Pretty strong.

Re:Mmmm

[TheLink]

How about a pizza with spider-goat cheese?

Wonder how stringy the cheese will be...

Re:Mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it turns out that you can drink spider goat milk and you can also make edible cheeses from it. Your body breaks it down the exact same way it does regular milk. The difference is that they can spin strands of silk from the milk to and with enough layers they can make wearable clothing that is strong enough to defend against a bullet but light enough not to be uncomfortable. It's pretty interesting. Anyways, in this particular regards I think Gore is just being a Luddite. I usually agree with him but this one I have to call.

Re:Mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably like a thick mucous with a little stringiness. Salty.

Wait. Wrong goat.

Re:Mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Spider milk is a little stringy.

manbearpig!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm serial!

Re:manbearpig!

[Nidi62]

it's only one small step from spider goats to the crossbreeding breeding of manbears and bearpigs.

Re:manbearpig!

[Mysteryprize]

super serial?

Re:manbearpig!

[ShanghaiBill]

Al Gore's views on GMO are idiotic. GMO goats are the least of our concern. They don't spread their DNA in windblown pollen like GMO crops, and they have none of the potential dangers of GMO microorganisms. So now we are going to regulate genetic engineering, not on legitimate risks, but on the unscientific "yuck factor"?

Re:manbearpig!

[dbIII]

I always thought the goats were a cool positive example of the technology almost as good as the discontinued banana vaccine project.
Without earlier less obvious examples of genetic manipulation we'd certainly have a lot less to eat today and the "future shock" claims about widespread starvation would have happened.

Re:manbearpig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore's views on GMO are idiotic.

You'll be eating your words my friend when a mad scientist unleashes the megahexadangerous chimeras BearPigMan, BearManPig, ManBearPig, ManPigBear, PigBearMan, and PigManBear upon an unsuspecting mankind.

Re:manbearpig!

[wonkey_monkey]

almost as good as the discontinued banana vaccine project.

I caught banana last year. Not nice.

Re:manbearpig!

[wonkey_monkey]

Ah crap, should've said "discontinued banana." Sounds ruder.

Re:manbearpig!

[dbIII]

I was one of the coolest things I'd heard of - no messing about with preserved stuff from horse blood or whatever but instead a vaccine as easy to ship around as a box of bananas. To cap it off vaccination was as simple as eating a piece of banana or a spoonful of mashed banana. Due to a GM scare in the press it and everything else that looked like GM was axed.

Re:manbearpig!

[Anonymous Coward]

and bannana was a good choice as they can't polinate, as all bannana's are sterile.

Re:manbearpig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Arntzen once had high hopes for the concept (he worked on something similar in tomatoes), but the regulatory hurdles for an edible vaccine plus the money needed for safety trials made the whole endeavor too complicated, he said. He and most others have abandoned the effort and moved on to growing non-edible vaccines in tobacco plants.

If the process was viable, Bayer would be producing it right now, but that hasn't happened because of a vast and powerful organization of anti-GMO hippies?
Call me naive if you want, but i assume they're just tweaking the process because they have productivity/financial/market/efficiency problems.

Re:manbearpig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore is idiotic period.

Re:manbearpig!

[dbIII]

No, if the process was developed with public funding to the point of being obviously viable, the Bayer execs had had a nice lunch and the idea didn't get in the way of something a crony was doing (or other stupid office politics) THEN Bayer would be producing it right now.
There's a long way between prototype and product, and the larger and more established the org the less keen they are on doing the work in between. So yes, you (and many others) are naive.

democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

The flow of money into the U.S. political system, he argued, and the need by politicians to fundraise has led to special interests gaining undue power.

âoeOur democracy has been hacked,â Gore told his audience, referring to the U.S. Constitution as âoeour operating system.â While thereâ(TM)s never been a âoegolden ageâ of American Democracy, he added, the perils emerging today are new. âoeIf a Congressman or Senator has to spend five hours a day begging special interests or rich people for money,â he said, theyâ(TM)ll be more concerned about how what theyâ(TM)re saying will appeal to those interestsâ"rather than their constituents.

Special interests are inevitable in a system that allows politicians to set the rules for businesses and individuals in the first place. The politicians are the ones that hacked the Constitution, they hacked the Law. They figured out how to remove the chains that were placed upon the government to bind it, to provide it with only limited powers (article 1, section 8). Once the politicians found the way (it was easy once the Republic became wealthy enough due to all the business that thrived under the mostly free market system in the first 124 years of the Republic), just promise the people something for nothing and they will vote for you and will let you do whatever you want to the Law. The politicians turned the Republic into a democracy by promising a bunch of stuff to be given out as subsidies and it was popular, because the promise was to make only a minority of people to pay for it (discrimination against a minority based on different levels of income).

So the more power that the government stole from the people by promising them free stuff, the more lucrative it became for politicians to keep power and the more competitive the field of politics became because it brought with it much more power than it was ever designed to give to the politicians.

Politicians are today's Rock Stars, they live better than the rest of the public, they get all this respect for some reason, they get the best deals on everything (trust me, companies like large banks, credit card companies, even phone companies have lists of 'higher class' people to provide a much better service and not to bug in case they break the rules, and these lists include politicians and their various friends).

It's lucrative to be a politician, and so it is very competitive and it gives so much power that wasn't meant to be there, that's why there is all this money pouring in - those are bribes to leave people alone in many cases.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hamilton rooted Freedom with the N&P clause and everything else is history.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Tokolosh]

Bravo! All attempts to limit political contributions are doomed to fail, as the incentives to bypass such limits are too enormous. The only solution is to reduce the power of the government as a whole. This entirely opposite to the policies of both the Democrats and Republicans.

Al Gore himself is a fine example, having incentivized thousands of lobbyists around the world, while stomping around with the carbon footprint of a mastodon.

Re:democracy hacked?

[__aaltlg1547]

Special interests are inevitable in a system that allows politicians to set the rules for businesses and individuals in the first place. The politicians are the ones that hacked the Constitution, they hacked the Law. They figured out how to remove the chains that were placed upon the government to bind it, to provide it with only limited powers (article 1, section 8). Once the politicians found the way (it was easy once the Republic became wealthy enough due to all the business that thrived under the mostly free market system in the first 124 years of the Republic), just promise the people something for nothing and they will vote for you and will let you do whatever you want to the Law. .

Business really didn't thrive. It was boom and bust all the way. There were multiple deep and sometimes long recessions and depressions. There was also very much not a free market in critical industries. Federal land grants built the railroads and the West -- on land forcibly "liberated" from its previous occupants and owners.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree with you overall, but we didn't have this "mostly free" utopian market the first 124 years of our nation. Even forgetting the shenanigans that was happening early on, there was this little dust-up called the American Civil War that was caused primarily buy the north wanting tariffs on goods so local industry could develop (which was expensive, which drove up costs) and the south wanting the goods to be cheap and to not be a captive market for the north.

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Definitely, Al Gore benefited from his political connections many times. Current TV would not have become profitable for him in that sale if he wasn't Gore and didn't have all these political connections (you can't just start a media company and really expect all those networks and channels and carriers to give you access). His fortune became larger also as a result of the 529 Million USD loan (political connections) that gov't gave Fisker car company, and they moved production to Finland, manufacturing gas guzzling (climate change, ha?) luxury 90,000USD cars (man of the people).

Re:democracy hacked?

[fustakrakich]

Wag the dog.. Business sets the rules.. Government enforces them... Who do you think has the resources to set up a government to begin with? Business and government are not competing interests. They are symbiotic, unable to exist on their own. Together they set up a wonderful system where the slaves actually believe they are free because they can buy lots of trinkets.

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Business really didn't thrive.

- orly? USA was built in that time period. The debts (mostly private) were all paid out as the country became largest manufacturer in the world in that time period. In that time period basically all major cities were built around manufacturing and shipping hubs, the infrastructure was built privately. The 'booms and busts' of the time happened exactly around every incident of gov't meddling with the economy, and of-course the Civil War didn't help matters. And yet, including the War and all the problems, by the beginning of 20th century USA became largest manufacturer, exporter and creditor nation in the world (and it achieved it in even less than that time period, and before it was really just an afterthought to European nations, a large debtor as well).

In that time period millions of people got access to ever cheaper food, clothing, medical help, inventions and innovations were done in USA, people came from all around the world to work there because they saw it as the real land of opportunity specifically because there was no government intervention (especially compared to their home countries).

The banking problems were minor compared to the total disaster that is at hand today, with all the banks being zombies, walking dead, artificially propped up by fake Fed credit. The money of the time was real and gaining in value and prices were going down while more goods were coming on line that never even existed before.

AFAIC comparatively speaking 19th century USA created more wealth and the actual real middle class than 20th century USA (don't get me started on the current century) and all of that was done with much higher 'income inequality' than we see anywhere in the world today, proving that people are really only limited to how much they can produce, save and invest by the political system, not by market itself. The billionaires of today are children compared to the billionaires (taking inflation into account) of the 19th century and everybody's well being and standard of living was actually rising.

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Wag the dog.. Business sets the rules.. Government enforces them...

- not without complicity of the mob. It doesn't happen without implicit and explicit support of the mob who really want their free bread and circuses and are absolutely willing to give up actual freedoms in exchange for a promise of some discrimination against somebody else, as long as they get some of the spoils.

Vast majority of business interests are not represented in gov't, only the close friends of politicians, people that the political system turns into monopolies are really in the position to set the rules. But they can't do that in a system that does not give the politicians all this power and the mob gives the power.

Re:democracy hacked?

[PopeRatzo]

Special interests are inevitable in a system that allows politicians to set the rules for businesses and individuals in the first place.

Only if money changes hands.

that's why there is all this money pouring in

No, there's money pouring in because it's legal to do so. Make it illegal, create public election financing and put a few politicians away for taking money and watch how fast things change.

Politicians set the rules for businesses and individuals in 1790 too, you know.

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Oh please, that's naive nonsense. You really believe that by making it illegal to take bribes there will be no bribes? It's illegal to take bribes in most parts of the world and the bribes never stop.

In USA the bribes are taken to a different level with so much gov't rules and regulations and taxes and offices, that it is just impossible at all to make something illegal in the first place and even if you made it illegal the money would find way. You really think you can stop the money?

No, you can only choke the power of the ruling class, if they are not allowed to take away your freedom and offer it to the highest bidders, then they can't sell anything.

Re:democracy hacked?

[PopeRatzo]

the American Civil War that was caused primarily buy the north wanting tariffs on goods so local industry could develop (which was expensive, which drove up costs) and the south wanting the goods to be cheap and to not be a captive market for the north

American history, Slashdot style.

You're right about the South wanting "cheap goods" though. They happened to be black and human though.

Re:democracy hacked?

[demonlapin]

Campaign contributions are a drop in the bucket; it's what politicians do when they're out of office that makes the in-office stuff look like kindergarten play. Unless you plan to prohibit politicians from ever holding a job or making an investment after they leave office, people will find a legal way to pay them for their insider knowledge.

Politicians set the rules for businesses and individuals in 1790 too, you know.

You don't seriously think that the reach of the federal government in 1790 was as extensive as it is today, so don't be ridiculous.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Marxdot]

tl;dr, roman_mir implies that democracy and proper self-determination is "tyrannical" and makes thinly-veiled wishes for a de jure dictatorship of industrialists, as usual.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

"19th century USA created more wealth and the actual real middle class than 20th century"

Laughably incorrect. This alone makes me doubt all your claims.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Marxdot]

Who is the ruling class comprised of?

Re:democracy hacked?

[raind]

Politicians have been rock stars long before there were any

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

It's lucrative to be a politician, and so it is very competitive and it gives so much power that wasn't meant to be there

Yet another reason to keep as much power as possible as local as possible. If some small town or large city gets corrupt, it doesn't affect the rest of us. But if the federal government is corrupt, it affects all of us. And it's a lot harder to deal with federal government corruption than local government corruption.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and all of that was done with much higher 'income inequality' than we see anywhere in the world today, proving that people are really only limited to how much they can produce, save and invest by the political system, not by market itself..."

I think that capture of the political system by market-based financial interests is built in - that is, inevitable. Income inequality proceeds from this and grows more and more rapidly as technology makes it possible to reallocate wealth essentially instantly. So really, in a de novo economic system (which America pretty much was at its founding) there's a limited time during which people can better their economic station through a merit-based combination of intelligence and hard work. Those who are successful in that process gain the means to, and inevitably do, purchase the machinery of the state and subordinate it to their ideas of what's a good thing to do - that is, to their personal market imperatives. Viz the Koch brothers.

We're living in such a time right now. Recall the 2008 financial disaster that engulfed America and the world, and how the collapse was precipitated by the proliferation of financial instruments (CDOs, subprime mortgages, etc.) that benefited a very small fraction of the population. And note the absolute imperative that our politicians labor under, which is the need to raise money to attain/maintain their offices. And note the rapidly widening income inequality in every economic system - it's only a phase delay in Europe compared to America. AFAICT, short term market interests drive just about every process that matters today. Maybe that's always been true, but it's so very much more effective now due to technology. And it isn't clear to me that those interests lead to stable societies, or long term good outcomes for any but a few.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Vast majority of business interests are not represented in gov't...":

Citation needed. It's quite clear that when a business interest becomes successful (that is, when it starts to throw off enough money to rise above its competitors and become an economic force in society), it purchases political influence to an increasing degree. The only business interests that are not represented in government are the ones that don't matter.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Sarius64]

Funny you should pick an article on Gore to suggest this. He and his father were puppets at the strings of Armand Hammer. Hammer outright bribed his father with more blood money from the Kulak's than most people will ever imagine. Gore Jr. rigged this cap and trade game to exploit the world for billions of dollars. But no one ever names names for the (supposed) Democratic Party members.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Samantha Wright]

Limiting the powers of politicians is not going to help. The friends of politicians you describe will just find a new exploit, and manipulate the legislative process until the political apparatus is strong enough to achieve whatever they wish. That's how the system got into its present state. Today's successful capitalists are tomorrow's lobbyists.

If you really want to stop people from doing anything they can to be more successful than everyone else, you need to destroy their motivation to succeed in the first place. A new game must be invented, one where people are not told that being rich is the key to happiness. I couldn't tell you what that is, but it's obvious that the way things are going is inherently unstable.

Re:democracy hacked?

[hairyfish]

Special interests are inevitable in a system that allows politicians to set the rules for businesses and individuals in the first place. The politicians are the ones that hacked the Constitution, they hacked the Law. They figured out how to remove the chains that were placed upon the government to bind it, to provide it with only limited powers (article 1, section 8). Once the politicians found the way (it was easy once the Republic became wealthy enough due to all the business that thrived under the mostly free market system in the first 124 years of the Republic), just promise the people something for nothing and they will vote for you and will let you do whatever you want to the Law. The politicians turned the Republic into a democracy by promising a bunch of stuff to be given out as subsidies and it was popular, because the promise was to make only a minority of people to pay for it (discrimination against a minority based on different levels of income).

So the more power that the government stole from the people by promising them free stuff, the more lucrative it became for politicians to keep power and the more competitive the field of politics became because it brought with it much more power than it was ever designed to give to the politicians.

As I read this I thought I was reading the intro sequence to The Phantom Menace...

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

" And it isn't clear to me that those interests lead to stable societies, or long term good outcomes for any but a few."
Let me tell you: it doesn't. I'm taking a graduate course called Futures and Options Trading and we learn about the "experts" that think they know it all then shit the bed and have to be bailed out. Most of the biggest fuckups come from assholes only thinking and acting short term but being so sure that the long term will take care of itself somehow. Spoiler alert: it doesn't. Not even fucking close.

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

Together they set up a wonderful system where the slaves actually believe they are free because they can buy lots of trinkets.

Um, you know that a slave is a real thing, right? And it isn't "someone who goes to work to make money." Believe it or not, you are not a slave. Your comment is like a kid who wants to call CPA because his mom won't let him play video games.

Re:democracy hacked?

[CodeBuster]

The only solution is to reduce the power of the government as a whole. This entirely opposite to the policies of both the Democrats and Republicans.

The Libertarians have been suggesting this remedy for decades now, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seem particularly interested. The Republicans at least pay lip service to smaller and more limited government, but never actually do much to achieve it, while Democrats are openly hostile to even the suggestion of it; It's anathema to them. So our problems with large, powerful and intrusive government are likely to continue and increase in the years ahead as they have for decades now.

Re:democracy hacked?

[citywolf]

Agreed. WDF

Re:democracy hacked?

[fustakrakich]

Please, stop with the ideological fairy tales. They are diversionary abstractions that only cloud the pure biology at play. Everybody knows their place. The rise and fall of every government solely depends on its cost/benefit ratio.

Re:democracy hacked?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Believe it or not, you are not a slave.

I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I couldn't do the things I wanted. - Frederick Douglass

The thing about slavery is that there have been so many forms with various levels of freedom. And then variations like serfdom and helotry.

What would be your test for whether a person is a slave - a test that would encompass all historical forms of slavery? Find that test and apply it to modern subjects of nation states to see where they fall. Apply some small variations ("plus they are allowed to insult the master"). Measure against the legal theory that slaves have no inherent right to property and compare it to up-to-100% of income being subject to confiscation. See where the chips may fall.

In the US, at least, the traditional definition of 'citizen' ("a oath of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection") isn't in play as the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that the government has any duty to protect its People. What we are here is a very open question, from a legal history perspective.

Re:democracy hacked?

[dbIII]

However "smaller and more limited government" is in many cases just a code for not having any auditors that can identify where the bribes are coming from and what the money is getting spent on. That gold plated cisco router in a one room library mentioned in an earlier story is an example of the "smaller" government, as is the missing millions in Iraq, outsourcing a pile of TSA stuff to Chertoff's company and I'm sure plenty of more recent stuff perpetrated by both of the functioning US political parties. The players know that code so for some of the honest "smaller government" is seen as meaning nothing more than graft, corruption and diverting public money into friendly pockets - thus "It's anathema to them".

It's one of those stupid twisted issues where the actual issue (in this case that of a well run public services delivered without consuming a lot of tax income, which everyone would like to see) gets buried under tons of baggage ranging from "I'm all right Jack" anarchists, blatant Royalists that want to set up the rich as a new nobility that Washington would have shot without hesitation, to utter scumbags on the take. Acting to oppose utter scumbags on the take (and similar) is framed as wishing to waste public money.

Re:democracy hacked?

[mvdwege]

And yet you completely skip over the point that most of the 19th Century prosperity in the USA was made on the work of the Federal army in cleaning out those pesky natives from the resources the settlers wanted.

Scratch a libertard, find a good old-fashioned oligarch underneath.

Re:democracy hacked?

[TubeSteak]

Wag the dog.. Business sets the rules.. Government enforces them...

Two words: regulatory capture

The relatively new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is independant of Congress and has been churning out meaningful regulations.
Compare and contrast with mining or nuclear regulators, who are not independant of Congress and are heavily influenced by the companies they regulate.

Independant regulators (that do not have to worry about getting defunded every year) could do wonders to fix our fucked up system of rules.
I mean, we appoint independant prosecutors to impeach Clinton, but we can't get independant prosecutors to go after multi-trillion bank fraud?

Re:democracy hacked?

[dbIII]

The banking problems were minor compared to the total disaster that is at hand today

While you do have some points they are ruined by such obvious dishonesty or breathtaking ignorance.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that making bribes illegal is a good way to, you know, get rid of them. Now, if someone in the US is given money, noone cares -- after making it blatantly illegal to take money as a politician, it will be much simpler to deal with them by tossing them in jail. Even if people find a way around the law (which they will), they're taking extra risks (on both ends -- politician and briber alike). Criminologists will be able to explain to you that higher risks leads to lower crime rates, unless other factors (such as gain) change. Thus, "worst"case, buying politicians would become more risky and probably more expensive.

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

"not being able to do the things I wanted" isn't a slave, that's basically every person alive. Fact is, when you live with other people, you can't do everything you want. Sucks, but it's reality, and saying you are a slave because you can't do what you want makes you look like a petulant teenager.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, the word is spelled "independent". I don't bother with single typos, but repeating the mistake 5x suggested you may not be aware of the correct spelling.

Re:democracy hacked?

[reboot246]

It was the Commerce Clause (that the Supreme Court misinterpreted), paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, that killed the Republic. Once Congress got the ability to regulate intrastate commerce, the game was over.

Re:democracy hacked?

[BasilBrush]

Bravo! All attempts to limit political contributions are doomed to fail, as the incentives to bypass such limits are too enormous. The only solution is to reduce the power of the government as a whole.

The problems that America has (and they are relatively few, first world problems) are down to the power of corporations. Their bribing politicians with contributions is one one part of that. Reducing the power of government will not reduce the power of corporations at all, it'll actually increase it. And thus would be counter productive.

Re:democracy hacked?

[BasilBrush]

This would be the 19th Century where the wealth was made from stealing land from native Americans, and extracting natural resources such as gold and oil? Where the agricultural practices that would create the dust bowl were being created. Where cotton was picked by black slaves, and the railroads were built by the Chinese? Where the abuses of monopolies were rampant. Where a few became ultra-rich, but the majority were dirt poor?

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Correct, and as usual the intent was different from what is implemented now. The intent was for the federal gov't to increase competition between States, not to create monopolies. To do it, federal gov't was supposed to prevent individual States from setting rules that would for example require re-licensing of businesses and different professionals from one state to another. However that's exactly what is happening. They even have licenses for taxis and moving companies, never mind professionals like commodity traders or doctors or lawyers or engineers or builders, etc.

However that's what the point was - to prevent States from each requiring a different license for every type of situation. The power that Congress had was to regulate the act of interstate commerce but not to regulate a company itself!

Once the gov't got a way to tax and regulate companies and not the act of trade itself, that's it, it was over and the SCOTUS didn't stop it at all, it helped the power, didn't contain it.

AFAIC 'interpreting the Constitution' really means breaking the law, nothing else. (the reasons are in that JE)

SCOTUS has given up on its role, which is to stop the gov't from passing laws that are contrary to the Constitution. I touched on the ACA decision, showing how the law is bent to make it look 'Constitutional' and even how eventually the lower courts will take it further, by inevitably mis-understanding the ruling by SCOTUS and will ensure that eventually ACA will be enforced in a way that is not even deemed Constitutional by that ruling itself.

That's the same thing that happened for all other cases, including income tax (which doesn't even exist as a law for individuals, the amendment to the Constitution required that SCOTUS would eventually clarify how the law is supposed to be used and enforced and in the process SCOTUS clarified that 'income tax' is actually a 'profit tax' and as such it can only apply to corporations and not to individuals). But the lower courts have enforced the non-existing law based on the wrong reading of the SCOTUS decisions and I think it is done deliberately.

Congress passes an unconstitutional law, SCOTUS finds reasons to justify the law as marginally Constitutional for some special case scenario, the lower courts then themselves apply and interpret the ruling in a much broader, completely incorrect manner and that's it, now you have what they like to call 'precedent'.

The entire problem with precedent is that regardless of how it was established, now they say they must follow it! Amazing, isn't it? But that's a really clever hack of the political system.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I agree with Libertarians, but you're just incredibly ignorant. Go read a history book you fucking retard.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact is, when you live with other people, you can't do everything you want. Sucks, but it's reality, and saying you are a slave because you can't do what you want makes you look like a petulant teenager.

Nice straw man. Well, then what makes me a slave is a fact that there is someone else who is allowed to do something not allowed to me, even though we both live among other people. Clearer now?

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

. Their bribing politicians with contributions is one one part of that. Reducing the power of government will not reduce the power of corporations at all, it'll actually increase it. And thus would be counter productive.

- what do you mean when you say power? Because when I say power, I mean legal power to force an individual to do things that the individual does not want to do. Power is backed by force of violence. The State is predicated on violence, in fact by definition State is a system of violence.

Consent of the governed gives the government its authority and I don't believe that the governed are interested to give the authority all of the powers that authorities have today, the governed are complaining, they are unhappy. However they are lulled to sleep by the promise of a free lunch but of-course to deliver that promise the State must engage in unprecedented amount of explicit violence against a number of people (they are a minority) but actually currency war is violence as well and so everybody who holds USD denominated assets (including dollars and bonds) are being violently attacked by the State, which is stealing their savings and investment capital, reducing their real earning and purchasing power.

Compared to that what can a private institution do that has no legal means to engage in such acts? Sure, a private institution can fight another private institution for a larger market share, but there is at the minimum the criminal code that is (at least in theory) supposed to stop a private institution from committing actual violent acts.

The gov't is supposed to protect private property, contract law and probably enforce the criminal code. If those necessary functions are implemented, then any amount of power that a private corporation holds is irrelevant. They will have the power not to be bound by stifling rules and regulations that are designed to create monopolies and extract money from them by the political system, but they can't actually hurt people if the private property rights, contracts and criminal code is enforced.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, that's naive nonsense. You really believe that by making it illegal to take bribes there will be no bribes?

I don't see where you got that idea. There would be fewer bribes, and there would be some form of recourse against those found to be giving or accepting bribes. "There would be no bribes" is a straw man.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why all the self-hate, Al Gore?"

Re:democracy hacked?

[Bearhouse]

Great post! Just one thing...

perpetrated by both of the functioning US political parties.

Are they really functional? Perhaps, as you suggest, for themselves, but maybe not for the people they were elected to represent.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

19th century

19th century is not

the first 124 years of the Republic

The Republic started in the 18th century (1776), with much of the first 80 years being a backwater colony, fighting Indians, using slaves on cotton farms, and people dying to dysentery and other ills of nature.

The turning point was when Abe Lincoln and the Republicans came to power, and expanded federal government

-federal government told the southern states and private businesses they can't discriminate black people no more
-fed government started the Civil War, which saw the beginning of industrial warfare, and began the military industrial complex
-fed government took centralized control over the Reconstruction Era that followed the Civil War, with disastrous results
-fed government introduced personal income tax (they say it's to pay for the war and reconstruction, but the taxes never went away, and the US hasn't really stopped going to wars since then, legal wars or otherwise, including wars on "drugs" and "terror")
-as said by others, the fed gave away land grants to build the railroads (and maybe not as often mentioned is how discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants were passed to help keep their wages down to make the project happen, but a lot of money was still wasted in corruption)

AFAIC comparatively speaking 19th century USA created more wealth and the actual real middle class than 20th century USA

Sure! But AFAIC, that prosperity was not made via maximizing liberty and free market capitalism. It was Imperialism. The US had no problem joining with other Imperialist European powers to fuck over Asians (which fueled the rise of communism over there, which we still have to deal with today)

Re:democracy hacked?

[happy_place]

Not to mention that with smaller government, the work that needs to be done gets sent to contractors that tend to charge a lot more for the same services. (defense contractors are quite adept at this). Anyone who's worked in government knows if you want a high paying salary you don't work in government--you contract to government.

And you can only imagine just how much lobbying goes on to get those contracts... So smaller government can be a recipe for more aggressive lobbying.

Re:democracy hacked?

[dbIII]

Both parties that have the numbers to get legislation passed anyway. I'll leave rants about a political system that strongly discourages citizens to take part (even people having to line up for hours to vote like in Kenya but without the reason of equipment malfunctions) for another day, or for people who are actually US citizens.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Quila]

The idea of smaller government means less power over the people. It does not mean less auditing and self-regulation of the government's functions. In fact, it should mean more, since these serve as a check on the power of the government.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Quila]

"Allowed"

Allowed by whom?

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scratch a libertard, find a good old-fashioned oligarch underneath.

roman mir isn't a libertarian, he's an anti-government anarchist. He's also a damned fool unless he's filthy rich.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Quila]

It's like payola -- make it illegal and it'll just crop up under a different name.

Can't directly donate/bribe? Give a fat contract to a company he's invested in. Build a library and put his name on it. Decide to build a big job-creating plant in his district and credit him with the decision. Give a job to a non-politician he owes a favor to. Promise a lucrative "consulting" job or a spot on a board after he's out. Look at former Senator Chris Dodd, did the movie industry's bidding while in office, now he's the CEO of their lobbying arm.

The only way to stop the bribes is to remove the reaon for the bribes.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is like a kid who wants to call CPA because his mom won't let him play video games.

How would an accountant help the kid? He probably wouldn't even know what a CPA was... I googled, Public Certified Accountant is all that was there in the first page of links.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Quila]

We've actually had a successful armed rebellion against a local corrupt government, the Battle of Athens. The corrupt government was thrown out, and it didn't affect the rest of the country. Like you say, it's not so easy or practical to do that when all the power is at the federal level.

Re:democracy hacked?

[tehcyder]

"19th century USA created more wealth and the actual real middle class than 20th century"

Laughably incorrect. This alone makes me doubt all your claims.

I just look at the poster's name "roman_mir" and know it's going to be the same old libertarian bollocks.

Re:democracy hacked?

[tehcyder]

Scratch a libertard, find a good old-fashioned oligarch underneath.

roman mir isn't a libertarian, he's an anti-government anarchist. He's also a damned fool unless he's filthy rich.

If you're anti-government but pro-capitalism, you're a libertarian, not an anarchist. I don't care how much people in the US want to try to hijack words to mean whatever suits them, the fact is that anarchists are on the left wing along with communists. If you believe in unfettered free markets and capitalism, you're not left wing.

Re:democracy hacked?

[operagost]

Corporations only have the power of a person because government made them that way. There's no problem created by the government that government won't claim it can fix.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is not surprising at all that governments of the world throughout history try to centralize their power

Each and every time, they get better at it. Alexander spread to much of the Mediterranean and into Persia. Rome at its height controlled much of Europe. Genghis Khan rampaged through much of Europe and Asia. The world was once divided between two superpowers, and now only one of them is left, and through its financial and economic policies basically linked the whole world to it, under the name of globalization and proliferation of the USD

I think it's inevitable that humanity will one way unite under one giant centralized government. Yes, it'll probably be oppressive and authoritarian. No, I'm not saying I like it (I would if I'm at the top though). I'm just saying it's inevitable.

Re:democracy hacked?

[tehcyder]

tl;dr, roman_mir implies that democracy and proper self-determination is "tyrannical" and makes thinly-veiled wishes for a de jure dictatorship of industrialists, as usual.

tl;dr roman_mir is a libertarian

Re:democracy hacked?

[BasilBrush]

hat do you mean when you say power? Because when I say power, I mean legal power to force an individual to do things that the individual does not want to do.

Weasel words. You've created your own personal definition for the word power, that includes an adjective that can only be applied to governmental power.

That's not any kind of commonly accepted use of the word power. It's the work of someone who frames the world to fit his preconceived notions, rather than the other way around.

You are irrational.

Re:democracy hacked?

[BasilBrush]

Nonsense. The mafia is an example of a corporation that works as far as possible outside of the bounds that governments set on corporations. Plenty of power in the mafia. (And drug dealing outfits and other forms of organised crime.)

If government control was reduced, the mafia would have more power, and corporations would become more like the mafia.

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Weasel words? Irrational? What is power, go ahead, define it in your 'rational' non-weasel way, please.

Power is to force an individual to do what he does not otherwise want to do and to force him, the gov't has legal power, it's predicated upon the promise and threat of violence.

You are calling me irrational, not even my definition, me personally. That in itself is already highly suspect and puts your entire comment into very questionable light.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

No way man. The mafia only has power because of those damn government regulations!

If there's no government regulation, good old hard working Americans will be free to enter the market! Mom & Pa's can enter the drug dealing and prostitution markets, creating competition and drive out the mafia and corporations!

Re:democracy hacked?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Fact is, when you live with other people, you can't do everything you want.

There are two basic ways to measure whether there is tyranny:

1) are you prohibited from doing any thing that harms no others? For example, we have half a million political prisoners from the so-called 'Drug War' (war can only be made against people, not things - in this case *The* People).

2) are there certain people who are allowed to do things that you are not? This speaks to Bastiat's basis for a just government and his test for legal plunder.

If neither of these is true, then liberty is the predominant theme in the society.

Re:democracy hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the sake of argument...

1) are you prohibited from doing any thing that harms no others? For example, we have half a million political prisoners from the so-called 'Drug War' (war can only be made against people, not things - in this case *The* People).

Drugs do harm others. The moral nannies' feelings get hurt. Minds liberated from chemicals are also less susceptible to established authorities, which means less profits for the church and state.

2) are there certain people who are allowed to do things that you are not? This speaks to Bastiat's basis for a just government and his test for legal plunder.

Well, I haven't ever heard of somebody in America being disallowed to become a politician or banker or lawyer themselves (that's beyond their control... I mean if you lacked the skills to become one that's your own problem). If you become one of those, you obviously can do the things you think that other people aren't allowed to do.

I mean, I'm now "allowed" to (legally) drive a fire truck. But I can fix that if I become a fireman or involved somehow (maybe fire truck mechanic? There's more than one way to skin a cat)

Re:democracy hacked?

[PopeRatzo]

an article on Gore to suggest this.

No disagreement there. Gore is one of the Democrats that I long could not stand. I think a lot of what he's done since 2000 has been because of his conflicted morals, having to do with his father and the way he rose to prominence and wealth.

Re:democracy hacked?

[PopeRatzo]

Oh please, that's naive nonsense. You really believe that by making it illegal to take bribes there will be no bribes?

Of course they will still take bribes. But at least they can be jailed for doing so.

Would your solution be to just let the "free market" decide which laws are passed by allowing corporations to bid for legislative votes? Then why not just let the largest corporations become the government? Oh, excuse me, that's what we've got now (and I assume you don't care for what we've got now).

Re:democracy hacked?

[roman_mir]

Would your solution be to just let the "free market" decide which laws are passed by allowing corporations to bid for legislative votes?

- can you explain your train of thought, how do you read my comments and come to this conclusion about my ideas?

If you care, my proposal is to remove power from government, allow the government only to do what is explicitly authorised to it to do, amend the Constitution to prevent any type of 'interpretation' of the law. If a law as it is in the Constitution is not clear, then amend the Constitution to make it clear but the government must not be allowed to legislate beyond what is written in the document. Actually take into account the context, in which the law in the document was written, so there cannot be just a battle of the lawyers (who can figure out how to read the law in the most literal way while completely abolishing the actual meaning behind it.

The system has failed because the government has all the power that it was never meant to have. My solution is to prevent that more effectively, prevent politicians from "helping" people.

Again: prevent politicians from helping people. There should be no legislation passed to help people.

The government is supposed to protect and defend the Constitution, not people, the document, the Law. There cannot be legislation aimed at 'lessening suffering' of anybody under any circumstances, that's not what government should be doing at all. That's the job of the individuals in the market to solve - figure out how to make money by providing all the necessary products and services that would lessen people's suffering.

Government must be prevented from pretending to be a charity, government must be prevented from interfering with any business, it must not be allowed to tax actual income or property itself, government must be limited to the funding that it can collect to the 2 specific types of taxes that were explicitly defined (apportioned direct tax or uniform excise, sale, duty, import).

My point is that there cannot be a government that will not be taken over by special interests if the government makes it a point meddling with people to help any special interests.

Employees are special interests.
Minorities are special interests.
Women are special interests.
Children are special interests.
Disabled are special interests.
The sick are special interests.
The old are special interests.
Any business that wants anything from gov't is a special interest.

Government must be very explicitly prohibited from acting for the benefit of any special interest, even from promising to act for the benefit of any special interest.

There cannot be a special interest right, such a concept creates entitlements for the special interests and obligations for everybody else, and that's what I am talking about - this is the theft of individual freedoms, this is what creates the lobbying, the bribing, all of its forms.

If central government should exist at all (and I am against all central governments on a principle), then it must have a limited role, it must protect the Law, it must protect the borders from invasion, it must protect property rights and contract law and possibly enforce criminal code.

That's all that the government must be authorised to do and all other functions must not even be authorised.

AFAIC there shouldn't even be any legislative process, the government must not be able to change the law easily. There should be limits to the way laws are created or changed, every law should have an expiry date. Government shouldn't be allowed to print money obviously, it shouldn't be allowed to set interest rates, prices, wages, it shouldn't be allowed to engage in currency or trade wars!

Government should not be allowed to manipulate the markets, it should not be allowed to participate in markets. My solutions is to have a government that does not do anything except a very limited number of things: protection

Re:democracy hacked?

[fustakrakich]

Where there is a privileged class, invariably there is slavery.

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

OK, so you are redefining the word slavery to suit your propaganda. You still sound like a whiny brat.

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

Huge difference between "not being able to do drugs when I want" and "slavery."

Re:democracy hacked?

[fustakrakich]

Arrogance blinds you to the truth

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

lol no, I see the truth quite clearly, you are a whiny brat. Probably going to go feel sorry for yourself as you stew over a joint, too.

Re:democracy hacked?

[fustakrakich]

:-) You win...

Re:democracy hacked?

[phantomfive]

That's ok, don't worry, I always look kindly down on the people I beat.

Re:democracy hacked?

[__aaltlg1547]

Scratch a libertard, find a good old-fashioned oligarch underneath.

roman mir isn't a libertarian, he's an anti-government anarchist. He's also a damned fool unless he's filthy rich.

If you're anti-government but pro-capitalism, you're a libertarian, not an anarchist.

Same thing.

Re:democracy hacked?

[AK Marc]

Why is it that when GW Bush does that with an oil company, or "buys" the Texas Rangers long enough to get a new stadium, then sells for a profit, after daddy and others help him make millions and feel so smert, all the anti-entitlement people are silent. But a Democrat does it, and it's a travesty.

Re:democracy hacked?

[AK Marc]

what do you mean when you say power? Because when I say power, I mean legal power to force an individual to do things that the individual does not want to do. Power is backed by force of violence. The State is predicated on violence, in fact by definition State is a system of violence.

The libertarian dystopia is all rights come from property, and when the corporations own all the property, then we have no rights left. They can do anything they want, and claim it was our trespass of living that was the first violence they responded to with appropriate lethal force.

People don't have rights under libertarianism - at least the type of libertarianism pushed by the American right.

Re:democracy hacked?

[AK Marc]

I'm left wing and believe in "free market capitalism" (which is different than "unfettered free markets" - those are flea markets and black markets).

I don't care how much people in the US want to try to hijack words to mean whatever suits them,

That's rich, coming from someone so grossly misusing "free market" capitalism. And no, left and right don't mean what you assert.

Re:democracy hacked?

[AK Marc]

What would be your test for whether a person is a slave - a test that would encompass all historical forms of slavery? /quote>I walked away from my job, moved to another country, and found a job that pays much more than what I had back in the states. I still own a US house, paid off and rented out for a nice profit, and paying on a new house here. It's a "socialist" country from US standards, but I feel like I have much more freedom, and if I don't like it, I can always move somewhere else.

A slave doesn't have the choice to move jobs, state, country, etc. on their own choice. In about a year, I'll have been here long enough to have a second citizenship. I'm planning on trying to pick up a third. Someone with Australia, US, and EU citizenships has about the best flexibility possible, and the US and Australia allow "dual" citizenship, and nobody that allows 2 disallows 3 or more, as far as I've seen.

Re:democracy hacked?

[AK Marc]

amend the Constitution to prevent any type of 'interpretation' of the law.

So no interpretation.

Actually take into account the context, in which the law in the document was written,

So, interpret it in the "context".

It seems to me that your position is no different than everyone you are complaining about. You want the document interpreted in exactly the manner you prefer, and no other. That's what everyone else is doing that you complain about. And I find it funny that all the anti-gay "conservatives" abandoned their claims to follow the Constitution as written when it comes to gay marriage. "Full Faith and Credit" doesn't apply in situations they don't want it to, despite the fact they are "strict constitutionalists" and all that.

Government must be very explicitly prohibited from acting for the benefit of any special interest, even from promising to act for the benefit of any special interest.

Since everyone other than a healthy rich white male made your list of "special interest" then the government must act only for the benefit of rich white male adults. Yes, we get it. And there isn't even any reading between the lines necessary, you spell it out quite clearly.

Re:democracy hacked?

[AK Marc]

The joke is libertarians claim they want liberty, but in practice seem to be fascists. Can't we just call them fascists? Communism is when the government nationalizes resources, fascism is when resources privatize the government. The results are the same, even if the road there (thus the rhetoric) is diffferent. So can we just cut through all the mental masturbation and call libertarians communists? Central planning from corporations isn't sufficiently different from communist cenrtal planning.

Constitution = OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Al Gore and his ilk are the actual hackers.

Re:Constitution = OS?

[Let's All Be Chinese]

Actually, no. The hackers were the founding fathers, hacking together something intended to last for a bit, only then the lusers came along and allowed the people's interests to be hijacked by monied sleaze. The malware more or less is running the system. There certainly are no competent administrators around to clean up the mess.

You can only stretch analogies so far, but "government" as "operating system", executing laws and directives and things, and regulating access to resources for corporations and individuals, isn't that bad an analogy, really.

Science run mad

[Frac O Mac]

Today its spider and goats, tomorrow its men, bears, maybe even pigs!

The TV channel is business .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Where he shows his hypocrisy is when he talks about the environment and global warming.

He is making MILLIONS selling the "carbon credit" scam ... that allow companies to POLLUTE legally by paying him a small fee.

Re:Oh, the irony...

[roman_mir]

oh, and it's a very interesting case. Current TV got all this access to various networks, you think that's a coincidence? You think you can start a media company and just get access to various networks and distributors? The entire concept was predicated on the Gore's persona, his ties to the government. He is a perfect example of the problem that he himself talks about.

Money in politics? How did Gore become partial owner of Fisker , a "car company" that just happened to get 529Billion USD subsidy (a loan) and ended up building luxury (90K Fisker Karma) sedans in Finland? Never mind the hypocrisy of this 'climate change' warrior, profiting from a gov't loan, given to a company that outsourced to another country manufacturing of a expensive luxury gas guzzler (20m/gallon)

Hey, hypocrisy is thick with this one.

Al Gore says lots of things

[turkeydance]

yes, Simpsons derivation.

Re:Al Gore says lots of things

[Samantha Wright]

Hey! Be nice. During his service in the United States Congress, he took the initiative in creating the Simpsons.

Sad to see

[Tagged_84]

Sad to see his stance on genetic engineering is so negative. How does he expect us to recover so many extinct species and continue to advance if we don't master our biological side?

Those goats aren't being thrown out in the wild to breed, they're being used to create stronger materials that will likely be used to protect us from the dangers of climate change. Sure we have risks of contamination, but to be put off advancement because of what-ifs would mean we'd still be in caves fearing the wrath of fire.

Re:Sad to see

[__aaltlg1547]

Can you make string cheese from the goat milk?

Re:Sad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up and take my money!

Re:Sad to see

[manu0601]

Those goats aren't being thrown out in the wild to breed

Indeed. It looks creepier than GM corn because goats are closer to humans than corn, but the risks of uncontrolled dissemination is much lower than with GM corn. And unlike GM corn, the silk goats are not drowned under toxic roundup

Re:Sad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Although there is no intent to allow these altered goats to breed randomly it will eventually occur. Right now the US has problem with wild boars that have managed to acquire genes fro Siberian boars. Siberian bores are more aggressive and tend to be larger than the normal American boar. Nobody deliberately imported Siberian boars for breeding in the US. But one way or another it happened and it caught on big time. In some states boars are a serious problem and you dare not get into a situation where you can be attacked.
                            Right now Florida has a big issue with pythons. The fear is that the African rock pythons will breed with the Burmese pythons and create a super python that is very large and aggressive. It is certain to occur. Now imagine one person doing this deliberately through genetic blending. Pythons are escape artists. One nut could let one or two altered pythons loose deliberately and we would have decades of expensive work trying to knock them back. We already have all kinds of foreign species here due to the warm climate becoming warmer. Pythons and iguanas in our lawns are rather common now.

Re:Sad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore's closer to a tree than a human.

Re:Sad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger issue with genetic changes could be that we also impact the evolution of other creatures. For example, creation of genetically modified crop to protect them better has impacted the evolution of those attackers we were trying to defend against. Although I agree that genetic engineering is a good idea in general, we should be careful and take the necessary precautions to make sure we don't end up growing more dangerous creatures into our ecosystem. I find it rather hard to believe that researchers didn't see this coming, but if they did not, then it may make sense to emphasize research in this area.

Re:Sad to see

[stoploss]

Can you make string cheese from the goat milk?

Yes, and as a bonus it also flosses your teeth while you eat it.

Re:Sad to see

[GrumpySteen]

Yes and you wouldn't notice the difference unless you were allergic to the protein since it's not in the form of long chains and it's suspended in the liquid just like all the other milk proteins.

Re:Sad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if these goats are allowed to go wild and breed in an uncontrolled manner, what harm will it do? These goats produce spider silk in their milk, I don't see how that can possibly beneficial, and most likely the genes for producing spider silk in their milk will be naturally bred out because these goats will be less fit in a reproductive sense that goats that don't produce spider silk in their milk.

Re:Sad to see

[__aaltlg1547]

How is silk protein non in the form of long chains useful? By the way, shouldn't that be what's in here?

Re:Sad to see

[GrumpySteen]

It's not. That's actually the big challenge to turning this stuff into a product. Various ways to do it have been developed, but I don't think any of them have scaled up well enough to allow mass production of products.

Sing along:

[Hartree]

Spider Goat, Spider Goat,
makes the thread for your spider coat!
Spins cloth with eight legged speed,
Any color, any weave.
Take note,
Here comes the Spider Goat!

Re:Sing along:

[Tablizer]

That song will get Spidergoatse.ce emailed to you.

Re:Sing along:

[shadowofwind]

Mashing the two previous posts....

There was an old woman who swallowed a goat
For spiderweb rope, she swallowed a goat
She swallowed the goat to protect us from the dangers of climate change....

Dang, doesn't rhyme.

Doesn't make any sense either.

Re:Sing along:

[approachingZero]

Excellent!

Re:Sing along:

[DFurno2003]

more mod points to this please

Re:Sing along:

[Anonymous Coward]

Friendly neighborhood GMO goat

Re:Sing along:

[Michael Woodhams]

It can only be female crime fighting goats swinging through the city, as they'll be shooting web from their udders. And then the comic books will get hold of this idea and... .. oh god... ... need brain bleach badly!...

AAAARRGHHH!!

Re:Sing along:

[Samantha Wright]

...tragically, she choked, and the skies are now permanently o-range.

(Oh snap.)

Re:Sing along:

[Anonymous Coward]

Female goats...yeah. That is exactly what I was thinking too.

Re:Sing along:

[AK Marc]

How would you make male goats lactate silk protiens? And why are all your fantasies with male farm animals?

spidergoat

[WGFCrafty]

Spidergoat, the secondary menace to Al after, of course, man-bear-pig.

Re:spidergoat

[lexman098]

Damn, I usually have mod points. It's like I've got 10000 spoons when all I need is a knife.

Re:spidergoat

[bill_mcgonigle]

You win the story.

Eight legged goats

[Tough Love]

Abomination! Throw all the scientists down the well.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ....Note the sarcasm tags.

It is creepy

[Chuck Chunder]

Awesomely creepy!

Scientifically accurate Spider-Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Its genetic engineering run amok.

http://boingboing.net/2013/03/01/scientifically-accurate-spider.html

Forgot some stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

So the more power that the government stole from the people by promising them free stuff, ...

safety or illusion of safety, securing borders, promoting social 'values', bringing God back, ....

Contrary to what some say, money isn't the only way to 'buy' votes and the "Liberals" and Democrats are not the only ones buying votes. The "Conservative" side does buy votes too, "I'll increase defense spending to protect this country and fight Evil around the World!" - (i.e. you get to keep your at your defense contractor). Although, the Tea Party folks really put a dent in that.

Re:Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Renascence"??

"Our democracy"

[jodido]

"Our" democracy? Whose? The 15-20 percent unemployed? The millions losing their homes? The spied-upon?

Drank Spider-Goat Milk:

[Tablizer]

http://netanimations.net/Animated-clip-art-picture-of-ceiling-crawling-girl-creature.gif

The Problem with Al Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

About 100 years ago a retailing tycoon named John Wanamaker (older people might remember when they still had department stores) said: "Half of my advertising budget is wasted. The trouble is I can't figure out which half". Well he probably could in many cases, but after the fact, i.e. too late.

That's what I think about Al Gore's many dire predictions about climate, privacy, and this and that. I'm sure he's right on the money about a lot of them. The problem is, he has the kind of personality that is disposed to raise an alarm about almost anything. In Wall Street terms, he's bearish about the future of mankind.

Re:The Problem with Al Gore

[CncRobot]

Man-Bear-Pig, I'm being totally cereal!

Gore Campaign Contributions

[CncRobot]

When Bill Clinton was president he sold top secret ICBM technology to the Chinese in return for cash donations to the DNC, specifically his and Gore's election campaigns. This is fact. When asked about it during a debate between Gore and Bush, Gore's response was "No controlling legal authority" meaning that Janet Reno was the only one authorized to prosecute and she was told not to.

I really have a hard time listening to Gore, especially when it comes to campaign contributions. What he and Clinton did was treason, period, and he abused his power to not be prosecuted.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully they remember that technology as they face off with N. Korea. Either they should use it themselves or they should at least be more "on our side" in the stance against the great leader.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[Aighearach]

The Chinese actually stepped forward to help draft the latest sanctions because of their knowledge of N.Korean steps to evade them and what specific items they were trading in. China understands all too well that with N.K. making these nuclear threats against the US as soon as their missile tech improves to make them a threat the US has to strike first. China isn't about to let that happen. I wouldn't be surprised if China invaded N.K. at that point. They would lose a lot of face if the US has to nuke NK and they know it! And they wouldn't consider making an enemy of their biggest trade partner on behalf of an "ally" that never does what they're told.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[Ultracrepidarian]

For a lousy half million, as I recall.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[dbIII]

There was an attempted coup in NK at some point (1970s?) which was blamed on China and relations have been relatively frosty since (in comparison to no relations at all with the rest of the world).

I wouldn't be surprised if China invaded N.K. at that point.

So what does China do with such a basket case after they get it? It would be far more of a headache than the tribal areas are to Pakistan.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[Anonymous Coward]

False:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=233639

basically, a company outsourced the launch of their satellite to China; rocket blew up costing their insurers ~$200m. During the postmortem, the company let slip an approach to targeting that would improve the Chinese company's accuracy. There was an investigation, and everyone said no big deal (including Republican controlled congress that knew about this during Clinton's impeachment trial).

tl;dr: company outsources to China company; China company fails in task. In trying to solve the problem, said company accidentally gives China a cool formula that had low national security value; no crime and Pentagon didn't really care.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[Anonymous Coward]

quite frankly it's one of the only viable solutions to North Korea, but it's to Chinas disadvantage.

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them re-unite with South Korea (sort of like East Germany and West Germany in the 90's?)

Re:Gore Campaign Contributions

[AK Marc]

lt;dr Republicans lie about Democrats

tl;dr all politicians lie at all times

Spider goats

[Okian Warrior]

I used to own stock in the company that made spider goats.

When it was first announced I thought it was a great idea and would lead to a business producing a useful product. Spider silk is strong stuff which and would have many useful applications such as lightweight rope and lightweight body armor.

Although the goats made the spider silk proteins, the company never figured out the trick of making actual silk. Some process in the spinnerets of the spiders turns the proteins into silk, and the company was unable to reproduce this effect.

They sold off the IP for the process, and vanished into obscurity. I don't think anyone has figured out what the missing step was. (This was a couple of years ago - may have been solved since.)

I see nothing wrong with using animals in this way - as factories for producing useful products. The goats weren't mistreated (unlike chickens we raise for food). We do the same thing with other animals without the genetic engineering aspect - wool from sheep, for example.

Re:Spider goats

[phantomfive]

Yeah, if we could mass produce spider thread, it would be amazing.

Re:Spider goats

[Aighearach]

I heard the original top scientist left and went underground and started making star-monkeys.

Re:Spider goats

[Entropius]

Exactly -- and, even more strongly, we have been genetically engineering other animals for millennia, by selective breeding. We built, for instance, the bulldog -- a dog with no face, that can't fuck on its own, can't give birth on its own, and is generally completely physically incompetent. How is building a goat that makes spider silk any more unnatural or cruel?

Re:Spider goats

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly -- and, even more strongly, we have been genetically engineering other animals for millennia, by selective breeding. We built, for instance, the bulldog -- a dog with no face, that can't fuck on its own, can't give birth on its own, and is generally completely physically incompetent. How is building a goat that makes spider silk any more unnatural or cruel?

Really? Obviously doesn't hang out on slashdot then.

Re:Spider goats

[Samantha Wright]

This is not the first time a "GMO panic" story has fallen flat on the ears of Slashdot. The media keeps trying to stir up paranoia about in vitro meat, and I haven't met a single person who finds it anything other than ethically unimpeachable.

Re:Spider goats

[rasmusbr]

There was a documentary (Horizon: Playing God) about it last year that shows the silk being made, but it doesn't explain how it works except that the first step is to separate the spider silk protein from the milk.

Re:Spider goats

[Anonymous Coward]

I think (hope!) that most people who oppose the spider-goats also oppose bulldog breeding, so the fact that we've done (and continue to do) worse won't convince them GMO goats are OK. Note that I detest bulldog breeders (and have little more love for most "purebred" dog folks), but have no problem with GMO in general -- I'd be cool with naturally bread spider-goats, and equally mad about transgenically created bulldogs, so I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that's no argument.

Re:Spider goats

[drinkypoo]

The media keeps trying to stir up paranoia about in vitro meat, and I haven't met a single person who finds it anything other than ethically unimpeachable.

Companies which exist to manufacture stuff can't even give us products without lead paint, you think they're going to check that meat properly for defects? Nature has defenses against defects, if they are bad enough the animal gets sick, maybe even dies.

Re:Spider goats

[tehcyder]

I'm probably being thick, but why can't we just breed lots and lots of spiders and keep them all locked up in a big cage making spider silk? Why do we have to pass them through goats?

tl;dr I love goats and hate spiders

Re:Spider goats

[tehcyder]

Exactly -- and, even more strongly, we have been genetically engineering other animals for millennia, by selective breeding. We built, for instance, the bulldog -- a dog with no face, that can't fuck on its own, can't give birth on its own, and is generally completely physically incompetent. How is building a goat that makes spider silk any more unnatural or cruel?

Hey, guess what? I don't approve of bulldogs OR goat-spiders!

Who knew that because A is worse than B, that doesn't make B good, since life is not just about binary choices?

Re:Spider goats

[rasmusbr]

I'm probably being thick, but why can't we just breed lots and lots of spiders and keep them all locked up in a big cage making spider silk? Why do we have to pass them through goats?

tl;dr I love goats and hate spiders

There was a documentary about this, and according to the scientists working on it the problem with farming the spiders is that the spiders need lots of space and if you put two or more in the same cage they kill one another.

Re:Spider goats

[GrumpySteen]

Let me get this straight... you actually think that the beef you buy at the store has been checked for cellular level defects?

ROFLMAO

Beef is inspected visually. If a cow isn't falling down or visibly ill, it goes straight into slaughter. Same thing during and after slaughter... visual inspection only. If test-tube beef ever becomes a real product, it'll get the exact same visual inspection. The only difference is that, having been grown in a controlled environment, there won't be any exposure to prions, bacteria or viruses which would make it far safer than what we have today.

Re:Spider goats

[Baby Duck]

I, too, used to own stock in that Canadian company, Nexia Biotechnologies. The problem wasn't that they couldn't spin the silk proteins. The problem was they couldn't do it cheaply. Meanwhile, technological milestones from other companies weaving nano-fiber strands were coming out on a quarterly basis, each time smashing the price per inch. Many of the same applications for spider silk could also be done by nanotubes. Artificial silk-weaving couldn't keep up with the pace.

The first application of spider silk, to put Nexia on the map, was to be biodegradable medical sutures. They pleaded to the FDA they could bypass expensive multi-year human trial testing since spider silk should be deemed a natural product. At first the FDA agreed, so Nexia ramped up in preparation for a rollout. Later the FDA reversed their decision. This completely screwed Nexia since all their capital went into the rollout. They simply couldn't afford the trials.

Before they went under, they sold IP to a Virgina company. However, that company was much more greatly interested in Nexia's anti-chemical warfare shots (for U.S. soldiers serving in the Middle East) than they were in the spider silk.

We would be living in more interesting times if the weaving process had panned out and the suture rollout been a success. They were planning to completely remove goats from the equation. They wanted to develop a GMO crop that had the silk proteins in the plants' leaves. Instead of milking the goats, they would harvest the crop, grind the leaves, and then sift the proteins out.

Re:Spider goats

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that too. I wonder if any of these species could be used...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_spider

Re:Spider goats

[Samantha Wright]

It's true that it does require more expertise to quality-control this kind of meat, but the prices for doing that (mostly the occasional whole-genome sequencing) adequately are rapidly dropping. Given the number of current problems plaguing the meat industry (as GrumpySteen outlined), it's definitely a much better bet to go with cloned tissue.

Re:Spider goats

[drinkypoo]

Let me get this straight... you actually think that the beef you buy at the store has been checked for cellular level defects?

No, but after witnessing your lack of reading comprehension, I don't think you have been, either.

Beef is inspected visually. If a cow isn't falling down or visibly ill, it goes straight into slaughter.

Yes, that's what I said. Go back and reread my comment. That's more than you're going to get with vat meat, because a test at the edge of the vat won't reveal a problem with the middle.

The only difference is that, having been grown in a controlled environment

ROFLMAO

We're talking about a country that can't even make a defoliant it's going to spray over the top of its own soldiers without contaminating it with PCBs that will give them cancer. Controlled environment my ass.

Re:Spider goats

[GrumpySteen]

PCBs were thought to be safe at that time, which is why they were used. It was only in the late 80s that they were found to be carcinogenic.

The rest of your comment is equally clueless, just like the post I responded to.

Re:Spider goats

[drinkypoo]

PCBs were thought to be safe at that time, which is why they were used.

Bull fucking shit. "The toxicity associated with PCBs and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, including polychlorinated naphthalenes, was recognized very early due to a variety of industrial incidents.[19] Between 1936 and 1937, there were several medical cases and papers released on the possible link between PCBs and its detrimental health effects." You're a liar, and you're also a human piece of shit because you're defending Monsanto's willfully murderous actions. Fuck you, I hope you DIAF with a lot of shit on fire releasing dioxin around you.

Re:Spider goats

[GrumpySteen]

The US government sprayed the solders with Agent Orange, not Monsanto, yet you're claiming that I'm defending Monsanto for the actions of the US government?

That doesn't even make sense and all it does is demonstrate just how idiotic your arguments are. I would call you a troll, but that would be insulting to trolls.

Re:Spider goats

[AK Marc]

When you argue with someone who is decrying something, you are perceived to be supporting that thing. If that's not the case, you should choose your words more carefully. A quick skim through the thread makes it look like you are the one out in left field.

Re:Spider goats

[GrumpySteen]

When you decry something the US government did and someone responds about the US government, then you freak jump tracks and start screaming about that person defending Monsanto, you are perceived as being an idiot.

I'm done responding because this just one stawman argument after another. Feel free to make up more shit that I supposedly did and scream about it to your heart's content.

New high water mark for overrated

[fascismforthepeople]

Why on earth your comment is scoring +2 is beyond me, or any other sentient being.

promising a bunch of stuff to be given out as subsidies and it was popular, because the promise was to make only a minority of people to pay for it (discrimination against a minority based on different levels of income).

That statement would only be true if the US used a progressive taxation system. However, as the US taxation system is the most regressive in the world - and is a part of why the US has the most highly skewed distribution of wealth of any industrialized nation - your claim is 100% bullshit. If anything, the taxation system effectively results in those with the least paying the most for handouts to those who already have the most.

the more lucrative it became for politicians to keep power

Except that you are championing the cause of the first family of fascism, who are politicians that are seeking unlimited power for unlimited time. That is the highest possible accomplishment of keeping power, and how your church aims to produce fascism for the people.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only regressive because of the massive amount of money the government spends subsidizing poverty.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll go with "Failure to understand what regressive tax means" on that one.

Progressive tax: More tax money as a percentage of income comes from people who have more money.
Regressive tax: More tax money as a percentage of income comes from people who have less money.

Sales tax is generally considered a regressive tax.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

That statement would only be true if the US used a progressive taxation system. However, as the US taxation system is the most regressive in the world

Absolutely false. The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%. It's just not progressive to confiscatory, punitive levels as you'd like it.

Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes such as those on alcohol and cigarettes are regressive. Taxes on fuel and carbon emissions are regressive. Interestingly, such taxes are very popular with liberals.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[tehcyder]

The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%. It's just not progressive to confiscatory, punitive levels as you'd like it.

i.e. it's not fully progressive

Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes such as those on alcohol and cigarettes are regressive. Taxes on fuel and carbon emissions are regressive. Interestingly, such taxes are very popular with liberals.

Yet again the meaningless American right wing use of the word "liberal" crops up. If by "liberal" you mean "left wing" then you are quite wrong. Left wingers do not approve of flat-rate (regressive) taxes at all. We think that taxes should come out of income with the wealthiest paying a LOT more. Sales taxes, especially on things like electricity, fuel, food or clothes are completely inequitable for those on low incomes.

I know that right wingers like to equate left wingers with being anti-pleasure, it's simply a feeble diversionary tactic.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

That statement would only be true if the US used a progressive taxation system. However, as the US taxation system is the most regressive in the world

Absolutely false. The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%. It's just not progressive to confiscatory, punitive levels as you'd like it.

Federal income tax is only one tax. You mentioned sales tax, but you forgot payroll taxes, property taxes, etc. Payroll tax goes from 6.2% to 0%, with no deductions. Most people pay more in payroll tax than income tax. When you take all taxes into account and look at total tax rate (not marginal like you quoted), then the poor pay the highest percent and the rich pay the lowest. That's regressive and the US has one of the most regressive tax systems in the world. Only an idiot would argue that wasn't true by looking at marginal federal income tax rates.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[fascismforthepeople]

You could hardly be more wrong.

The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%

You have your numbers backwards. If you were to ever meet someone who makes minimum wage and ask them what they pay in taxes you will find that their taxation rate is far closer to 35% than it is to 10%. The people who pay 10% are at the very top of the socioeconomic ladder in this country.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

i.e. it's not fully progressive

You have progressive and regressive -- you don't have "fully" one or the other. If it scales up with income, it's progressive, period. The top rate is higher than the bottom rate, and that doesn't even include the standard deductions (self, head of household, kids). With standard deductions the lower 50% pay almost no federal income tax since the deductions bring what they owe to almost zero (actually, zero for most, a few percent for those in the late 40th percentile). The top 1% pay over one third of income taxes, with the standard deductions being virtually meaningless at their income level. That's progressive.

>Sales taxes, especially on things like electricity, fuel, food or clothes are completely inequitable for those on low incomes.

Yet it's the left-wing that's always promoting exorbitant energy and fuel taxes in the name of the environment, and for things like cigarettes.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

Most people pay more in payroll tax than income tax.

That isn't a regular tax, it's basically forced retirement savings. The rich will be able to get out of the system only to the level that they pay in. If a millionaire wants to live off of only Social Security during retirement, he's going to have to prepare for a much lower standard of living. If you want to extend the tax all the way up the income chain, expect to pay out accordingly.

When you take all taxes into account and look at total tax rate (not marginal like you quoted), then the poor pay the highest percent and the rich pay the lowest.

That would depend on the state of course, since some don't have income taxes, some don't have sales taxes, and Alaska has neither. We do have luxury taxes on expensive cars and boats, adding to the progressiveness of our system. But, yes, taxes popular with the left, such as cigarettes, phone, fuel and energy are extremely regressive.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

If you were to ever meet someone who makes minimum wage and ask them what they pay in taxes you will find that their taxation rate is far closer to 35% than it is to 10%.

Wrong. Minimum wage gets a person about $15,000 a year. Considering a single guy with no dependents (the worst tax situation in any country) and taking only standard deductions, he would pay $528 in federal taxes, about 3.5%.I took this from the 2012 federal tax forms. Now that's only theoretical. In real life, his gross income on the W-2 will be less than $15,000, making the amount of federal income tax paid even lower.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[AK Marc]

The US has a progressive federal income taxation system, from 10 to 35%. It's just not progressive to confiscatory, punitive levels as you'd like it.

Nope. The marginal rate increases, but not the taxes paid. The "rich" are so rich they don't have income. Their corporation has income. They are paid in capital gains and other unearned income taxed at a flat rate, with no progressiveness. The only people taxed progressively are poor people making money. Some football star from the ghetto making $10,000,000 per year? Tax him at 35%. The rich owner of the team making $15,000,000 on him? Deduct all expenses, then tax him at 15%.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

The US has a progressive federal income taxation system as I stated, period, absolute fact. Even capital gains tax is progressive. If you are in the lowest two income tax brackets you pay no capital gains taxes on long-term investments. Long-term investments (because they are encouraged to promote investment) then jump to 15% for the higher tax brackets. Capital gains tax on short-term investments scale exactly with the regular income tax brackets.

Deduct all expenses, then tax him at 15%.

If the owner is making $15M off that player, that's straight income to be taxed at the highest bracket, not capital gains.

And even if it were capital gains, you don't deduct expenses like with regular income. There are a certain few things that can be deducted on capital gains, but it deals with losses you took and interest you paid in dealing with the investment.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[AK Marc]

If the owner is making $15M off that player, that's straight income to be taxed at the highest bracket, not capital gains.

No, it isn't. The owner's $15,000,000 income is arbitrarily assigned to the incorporated sports team, then paid out in dividends or capital gains to the owner. It is not taxed as personal income.

And even if it were capital gains, you don't deduct expenses like with regular income.

As someone who has paid capital gains on a house (back before the rules were changed to what they are now), I know for a fact that you are wrong. Are you trying to spread your ignorance, or are you just lying? Yes, you don't get as many deductions as corporate income, but the $15,000,000 income to the owner from ticket sales has $15,000,000 in deductions against it for the stadium (taxpayer built), and other fees (marketing expenses that are blowjobs for local politicians for the next stadium). Every dollar pulled from capital gains has had so many deductions against it, it's essentially tax-free until given to the owner, who pays 15% tax on it as the *only* tax paid on that personal income.

You are obviously a poor Republican (or a foreigner who knows what he hears, but has no experience within the system). They all think the rich pay massive amounts of tax. As someone in the top 10% of wage earners, and top 10% of wealth (bottom rung of both) I can assure you that's not how it works. Even making $100k+ per year, I was paying less than 10% federal income tax, and less than 20% sum of all taxes (sales, property - house and rental farm, SS/FICA, etc.). Anyone paying more than that is either an idiot or deliberately overpaying as some sort of protest (yes, I've met some of those).

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

I still stand by my statements: Both income tax and capital gains tax are progressive. It's right there in the code. If you earn below certain amounts, you pay a lower percentage. If you earn above, you pay higher. Period, progressive, there can be no argument.

As I said in the beginning, it might not be progressive to the confiscatory, punitive levels that some may want, but it's still progressive.

And if you were paying less than 10% federal, it would be interesting to see how you got $100K+ down to below $9K in taxable income (single, no kids).

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[AK Marc]

And if you were paying less than 10% federal, it would be interesting to see how you got $100K+ down to below $9K in taxable income (single, no kids).

$28k taxable at the top bracket is $10,000 tax. But as you deduct, you drop brackets. $71,750 (married, filing jointly) pays less than $10,000 tax. How do you get $100k to under $71k? You deduct $30k. How did I do it? It's easy. Chose life choices that earn the greatest deductions. So many here complain about making personal choices to optimize tax and "live by the government's decree", but it isn't hard to make $100k in a year and pay $10k in tax.

It helps to understand math. 10% tax rate on $100k doesn't mean I had $90k in deductions. It doesn't even take a full $30k in deductions.

As I said in the beginning, it might not be progressive to the confiscatory, punitive levels that some may want, but it's still progressive.

The federal income tax rate may be progressive, but federal taxes aren't, as the more you have, the easier it is to structure your income to get you in a lower bracket.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

It helps to understand math.

It helps to understand the difference between taxable income and total income. This difference is why low-income people rarely pay federal income tax and never pay long-term capital gains tax.

The federal income tax rate may be progressive, but federal taxes aren't, as the more you have, the easier it is to structure your income to get you in a lower bracket.

You married couple pays 10%. A married couple making $30K will probably pay nothing. The less you have the more the standard deductions and credits matter in reducing your taxable income. Progressive.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[AK Marc]

You cherry pick from very small selection of cases to prove your point. You are wrong. The "tax system" isn't progressive, even if the tax rates are.

Re:New high water mark for overrated

[Quila]

You cherry picked. The bottom 50% pays almost no federal income tax, and that includes up to $32,000 a year. That's not a cherry-pick.

Al Gore yelling like goats yelling like humans

[billstewart]

This is probably a remix rather than the original "goats yelling like humans", but there are a number of "humans yelling like goats yelling like humans" in response.

New?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this news on slashdot when "Al Gore" and "Walter Mossberg" say this?!?
this makes me f*** ticked off.. of COURSE this is happening, and many bright people like Doc Searles for example, have been saying this for years! I am irritated by this blow-hard fatcat Gore, and by the mass media who won't print it unless he says it.. then its news...

Natural Mutations: Amazing, Human Genetics: Evil?

[SinisterRainbow]

We have already virtually stopped evolving naturally - under the traditional sense of 'natural.' Yet our brains are the consequence of this 'naturalness' is using it somehow not?

Re:Sunday Funnies

[approachingZero]

Totally agree. He's like sub character that almost made it into Sin City, but was just to boring for the final re-write.

Will someone think of????

[Anonymous Coward]

the Itsy Bitsy Spider!!!

So Al Gore is pseudo-religious and anti-science.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this humorous in the context of popular debate.

He was also part of Solindra

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore was in the board of directors of Solinda .... you know .... the "solar power" company that got $500M on government money and just a few months after getting the money close its doors.

Spidergoat, Spidergoat

[Arancaytar]

Does whatever a spidergoat does.

Don't be silly

[bussdriver]

If that is your definition, then what is unnatural? Anything? Plastic is natural too? If everything is natural, then why have the word at all?

Re:Don't be silly

[SinisterRainbow]

Exactly bussdriver. What is natural? And what is the purpose of having the word? Why 'do' we have the word is debatable but less so than why 'did' and why 'should' we have it. There's the definition 'Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind', if you are to believe google. What about the one where natural has a happy picture of earth and sunshine associated with it, and unnatural has the Terminator as its poster child? The one where a person get's all squinty eyed and shakes their heads and looks disgusted. Evolution is great, it is simple, it is true, and it now no longer applies to human beings. Are we going to steadfastly hold on to our previous connotations of natural and unnatural? Evolution has virtually stopped with us, and stops moreso with each medical advance. So what do we accept as the 'natural' thing now? Do we believe human beings are content with letting random mutations dictate our genetics and just solving the consequences (as we are doing now mostly)? What is wrong with engineering a goat to make (perhaps large amounts) of spiderwebs? We use them for milk essentially - do we have a problem with harvesting spiderwebs from animals and not milk? Should we allow it to live for x amount of generations to see if it will survive then deem given infinite time, evolution could have really produced this and then be OK? Will it hurt it's feelings or make it an outcast in it's social circle? What about making different kinds of meat without brains so we reduce the mass slaughter of animals? What about dogs and fixing all newborns - that's not 'natural' - what makes it ok and acceptable instead of 'creepy and scary'? What about circumcision? What about 'fixing' clef lips? What about heart surgery? What about driving a car - is that 'natural'? Would it be OK if many goats had the similar spin-off and lived together? Are people just wanting to wait to know more, how much more is acceptable? Look how many things are unnatural, so you can see there's a problem here with the old definition. I don't have all the answers, but I guess Gore does. Maybe he get messages from Zeus in his sleep? Or maybe he has arachnophobia? Or maybe he watched one too many bad sci fi movies? Did I ask too many questions? :) -- -Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler

Re:Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness we have you to warn us about bitter people.

what tags?

[Qubit]

. ....Note the sarcasm tags.

You must have written them in Unicode, because Slashdot doesn't seem to be able to display them...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Also, your scientists are really small. Or are you just approximating your scientists as a point mass when they fall down the well?

Re:what tags?

[Tough Love]

It was actually recursive sarcasm.

Re:Oh, the irony...

[Sarius64]

My life is great! Certainly better than my drug addled parents. Maybe your projecting has lost its path.

Anybody else RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

and think "What a douche."

I think I prefer Homer's version ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spider Goat, Spider Goat
Does what ever a spider goat does .....

Campaign Contributions has gone out of control

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Al Gore is right on one thing. Since the politician who gathers the most campaign contributions tends to win elections, we have a system in place now where the best sell outs get in office. This means politicians do things like make pork projects to special interests, and the special interests pay them kickbacks, all increasing the national debt. At one point the phone company and monopolies were supposed to be regulated by the government. Now corporations regulate the government by writing the legislation for them. Unless we change how campaign contributions work, the system will eventually fail because the national debt's interest becomes more and more of the total tax dollars taken in. Politicians in charge now won't change campaign contributions, because that's how they get paid, that's how they play the game and feel they're winning. But the people's interest aren't always the same interests as corporate interests, and the politicians might not give a damn about the people, but just themselves. This is the biggest problem of democracy as I see it now.

Re:Campaign Contributions has gone out of control

[phantomfive]

Since the politician who gathers the most campaign contributions tends to win elections

It's kind of a red herring. Remember, people pay money to politicians to gain access. Thus, they will give money to the politician they think is going to win, not the one they think will lose.

Re:Campaign Contributions has gone out of control

[CastrTroy]

Why not have campaign spending limits so it's not such a big deal. They have campaign spending limits in Canada. Also, they should limit (or completely eliminated) the ability for corporations to donate to campaigns, and also limit the amount any individual could donate to campaigns down to something small enough that a reasonable percentage of the population could afford to make the same donation. That way, there's less inequality as rich people and corporations wouldn't be able to buy off politicians, and politicians would focus more on having a good campaign whether than just spend a boatload of money to plaster their face all over the media.

Re:Campaign Contributions has gone out of control

[phantomfive]

For most campaigns, if citizens cared, they actually could make a difference. If one million people donated $50 to a campaign, it would be $50million dollars. That is enough to dwarf the corporate spending in most races across the country.

I don't know if you remember, but one of the big elements of the 2008 presidential campaign was how much Obama was able to raise from small normal donors. So it's already possible under the current system if people are willing to pitch in and make a difference.

If the constitution = OS

[Anonymous Coward]

The all those hundreds of thousands of regulations are what... Spyware and malware and extra crap...

Wouldn't that make Al Gore a libertardian if he beehive in this idea?

Re:I got to the "Al Gore" part...

[unixisc]

Actually, what surprised me about this submission/story was there being no mention either in the submission nor in the comments about his most famous invention - the internet. One would have thought that he'd be all over issues like free connectivity, pirate bay and a whole host of other internet related issues.

Wasn't that from the "Cutie Honey" movie?

[dbIII]

That looks like one of the Panther Claw villians from the live action "Cutie Honey" movie. Awesome start and finish but not much of substance in the middle.

Wasn't treason, just business as usual

[dbIII]

Ford flew to Jakarta to accept a large donation on the day Indonesia invaded East Timor, and then the US used it's regional influence and UN veto to ensure that Indonesia was left alone. Policy has been set by foreign powers donating to US political parties for quite a while and what looks like it should be treason is sometimes just the way both parties operate, and why outsiders like myself see the US political system as a corrupt shadow of what it was supposed to be.

What are Gore's views on gmo?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what are Al Gore's views on GMO? Mossberg, not Gore, thinks spider goats are science run amuck.

Not the first time WSJ didn't get the story right.

Re:Natural Mutations: Amazing, Human Genetics: Evi

[Anonymous Coward]

We have already virtually stopped evolving naturally - under the traditional sense of 'natural.' Yet our brains are the consequence of this 'naturalness' is using it somehow not?

Please don't go there again. We went there about 100-150 years ago, and it was bad.

As for the remainder of your question - the issue at hand is not just one of ethics, but one of real risks. Contamination of the ecosystem and influences to other species can become a real issue. The outcome isn't always bad- but that's just it: we can't predict the outcome.

EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[FranTaylor]

If we dismiss arguments with "the speaker is a hypocrite" then NOBODY will EVER listen to ANYBODY because we are ALL hypocrites.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE, stop associating ideas with the mouths from which they emerge, and

LET IDEAS STAND OR FALL ON THEIR MERIT

NOT ON WHO SUPPOSEDLY SAID THEM

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you to say that??!?

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness, what would the spin meisters do?

Critical thinking is a threat to our way of life.

We can't cast aside generations of ad hominem attacks?

We have an investment here!

This will cause a loss of jobs!

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

While your post has some merit, do you really feel any more insightful for abusing your caps lock key? Really?

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

You are both correct and terrifying.

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Point taken, but Al Gore is a little more hypocrite than the rest. By a lot.

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we should listen to an admitted hypocrite...

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging merit is hard. I propose a communication system to allow for identification amongst the white noise of substandard ideas.

IF YOUR IDEA HAS MERIT, PLEASE TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO LET EVERYONE KNOW.

Re:EVERYONE is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put it in context so you can understand:

When Al Gore says that we all need to change our lifestyles because of climate change, he is saying people who use their car for getting back and forth to work need to somehow "drive less." And simultaneously, between his multiple homes and fleet of cars and private air travel he uses as much carbon as 20 or more Americans, but buys "carbon credits" to "offset" that.

In short, he is saying yet again if you're poor, fuck you, find a way to manage with even less. And if you're rich, maybe you spend more money but nothing changes in your lifestyle. If he's so god-damned attached to saving the environment, he could choose to not live like a rich asshole. But he doesn't. So I'll be god damned if I am going to break my back finding ways to pinch pennies to save carbon emissions while he won't even refuse to stop flying in a private fucking jet.

Our problem, our perennial problem, is rich assholes, INCLUDING HIM.

How to secure privacy

[thetoadwarrior]

We need a lock box. I'm surprised he didn't suggest the lock box for saving privacy.

Oh when will politicians learn from the past?

[Errol backfiring]

While there's never been a "golden age" of American Democracy, he added, the perils emerging today are new.

No they are not. We live in a second 18th century. Everything that isn't yet in corporate hands is "enclosed". At all fronts. In Europe, even co-housing is now starting to be illegal. Ideas are enclosed. The money system is enclosed. And off course democracy is enclosed. At both sides of the pond. When will politicians ever learn from the past?

"It's a fact." - except it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually look it up, he didn't actually sell anything. The department of commerce allowed an American corporation to sell some computer stuff for use on Chinese commercial satelitte launches.

I'm not American, I couldn't care less about your stupid politics and Gore could be a jerk from all I know. But I do know from local politics that up to an election, the press (probably fueled by braindead smear campaigns) starts talking up myths, and when presented with a myth the worst thing you can do is start discussing it - then you start getting into a mud fight, instead of talking about what's important.

Speed limit, Strategic Petroleum Reserve

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Gore talks like an environmentalist these days, but I'm not so crazy about his track record.

1) The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) cut the speed limit to 55 miles per hour. This law was in response to the 1973 oil embargo, and its purpose was to save oil. The law was repealed in 1995, when Gore was Vice President. I don't remember him saying that the law should remain in effect, in order to save energy.

2) A little before the 2000 November election (I think in September), gasoline prices in the US started to rise. In response, people started to cut back on driving. An environmentalist should have cheered this. But Gore publicly called on President Clinton to release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve, in order to lower gasoline prices.

I don't know about his environmental track record except for these two cases. But in these two cases, he (apparently) accepted or called for actions that increased the use of oil. I would have preferred that he tell us, "Sorry, but it's an inconvenient truth that in order to save energy, we have to make some sacrifices."

Re:Speed limit, Strategic Petroleum Reserve

[Quila]

> I don't remember him saying that the law should remain in effect, in order to save energy.

Probably because if it saved any gas, it was less than 1%, and it didn't save any lives either. It did cost billions of lost hours of productivity though. It was just a bad law that needed to be repealed. States are now free to set speed limits according to what they should be for any specific road.

He's thuper therial, you guys

[Cyfun]

Thuper therial!

So wait he's against genetic engineering?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Let me guess, he's for embryonic stem cell therapy but doesn't realize that one of the most exciting uses of it would require genetic engineering. (Got a genetic lung disease? Easy, take your genetic material, fix the problem, create a new esc line of your corrected DNA a grow a new lung. It's compatible with you and doesn't have the problem.)

He looks like Q with none of the charm.

[GargamelSpaceman]

"Give me all the power, let me save you from the global warming monster and the scary technology monster. We can all live in the dark like the DPRK."

Spider Goats?

[tehcyder]

That's just wrong. Whatever your opinion of him, I think Al Gore has got that one right. Crossing venomous, hairy, crawling spawns of Satan with the loveable and intelligent goat is just evil.

Content-free article, mod it down

[Cajun Hell]

This is the part of TFA, in its entirety about genetic engineering.

Gore also railed against genetic engineering, including Spider Goats, which are goats with spliced spider DNA that allows them to secrete spider silk along with their milk. The goats breed, extending that trait to future generations. Gore sees such things as a case of science run amok, alternately creepy and scary.

No actual quotation, no stating of his case for what his problem with genetic engineering really is, no explanation of what's "creepy and scary" about the specific goat silk example, etc. SImply nothing other than saying he doesn't like it.

Might as well get his opinion of some fashion model's dress design, for all the argument and analysis happening here.

View, the happy smiling face of fascism

[fascismforthepeople]

It is rather appalling that your fascist movement has such a great following here on slashdot that you were able to quickly rebound your karma from posting at -1 to now posting at +1. Will you continue to use your sock puppets to echo your religious beliefs to make it seem like it has even more followers?

If you care, my proposal is to remove power from government

Except for, of course, one person. You want to remove the power from everyone in government except for your personal lord and savior, whom you want to see given unlimited power for unlimited time. You have declared youself in no uncertain terms to be a sworn enemy of democracy. Just because you take power away from over 99% of government, to concentrate it completely unchecked in the hands of one many, does not mean you are taking power away from government.

Employees are special interests.
Minorities are special interests.
Women are special interests.
Children are special interests.
Disabled are special interests.
The sick are special interests.
The old are special interests.

Your religious movement is a special interest, as is its leader. You want government to cave to your special interest while ignoring all others; yet you provide no reason why that would be good for anyone other than yourself.

Any business that wants anything from gov't is a special interest.

That is rank hypocrisy for you to make that statement, as your proposals with pretty well no exception favor what businesses want - the ability to treat people like property with no regulations or consequences whatsoever to prevent them from shitting all over the world to make a dollar.

Government must be very explicitly prohibited from acting for the benefit of any special interest, even from promising to act for the benefit of any special interest.

You are full of shit when you claim that to be a policy you support. You blatantly favor a massive special interest and openly support huge shifts in government policy to favor that interest.

You openly support granting all power to those with the most resources, so that they can continue to acquire more resources and power. You openly support trashing individual rights in the name of profit. Such highly skewed concentration of wealth and power has a name as a political system, and it is not "libertarianism" or "capitalism". The correct name for your system is fascism, and you are again showing us how you aspire to deliver fascism for the people.

Re:View, the happy smiling face of fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

It is rather appalling that your fascist movement has such a great following here on slashdot that you were able to quickly rebound your karma from posting at -1 to now posting at +1

No, it's funny. roman_mir and other libertarians keep acting like they're the lone sane man, the underdog always being modded down by a socialist mob working against him.

The fact his karma rebounded means he is wrong about that. No, roman_mir is not alone. He has a huge collective supporting him. It is he and the libertarians who are the mob now.

Mod parent DOWN

[fascismforthepeople]

The hypocrisy of the parent is staggering, and the fact that it was moderated up is baffling. Apparently the cult of ron paul has acquired a large number of moderator points recently and are pouring them all over this zealot.

The intent was for the federal gov't to increase competition between States, not to create monopolies.

OK, you can state that if you want. Of course you have a twisted sense of what it means to "create monopolies" but we can overlook that part for now.

federal gov't was supposed to prevent individual States from setting rules that would for example require re-licensing of businesses and different professionals from one state to another

So you normally advocate for less federal government intervention, except in this case where you pull a complete 180. Here you are asking for the federal government to step in and prevent the states from making decisions on their own. You ordinarily trust smaller government over larger government, but here you see smaller government as somehow being an impediment to profit so you are asking the federal government to step in, squash the smaller government, and provide you with a favor.

The power that Congress had was to regulate the act of interstate commerce but not to regulate a company itself!

You have that part wrong, as well. Or, at least, you have the interpretation of actual events wrong. Congress is not regulating any companies, the states are. But here you are asking for congress to step in and tell the states how to manage their own situations rather than allowing the states to manage them on their own. Why do you hate states' rights all of a sudden?

Nevermind, we know the answer. You want the federal government to take over all powers from the states, to make businesses more profitable at the expense of the citizenry. You want to accelerate the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of increasingly fewer people while more and more people are merely getting by (at best!). And you want your church leader to be at the helm of it all, with no checks or limits on his power of any kind.

Your system concentrates power, this is called fascism. You are again showing how you will produce fascism for the people.

Re:Natural Mutations: Amazing, Human Genetics: Evi

[SinisterRainbow]

NO ONE is advocating Social Darwinism are they? I think you stuck in the straw man and beat him. By stating we have stopped evolving is a statement of truth. What we do now is in limbo. We are skirting around the issue, and in some cases such as this one by Gore, simply stating opinions by appeal to emotion. I also never said their aren't risks, we all know that. The bigger issue is, instead of open discussion, we get a lot of immediate negative reaction. Furthermore, we can't predict the outcome of evolution either (again another simple statement of truth). I am in awe of Evolution and it's simplicity and it's truth, yet it doesn't always produce human-nice results (viruses, bacteria, weeds, insects that eat crops,etc.), or dolphin friendly, or anything friendly, it is a mechanism and nothing more. To say we shouldn't mess with it or talk about it is blasphemy to science. And it's hypocritical - we have no problem when GE is used to eradicate disease, do we? Or having doctors come up with solutions that allow people to live who normally wouldn't. By interfering and extending life and allowing more to live, we are contributing to human overpopulation, which does more to eradicate species than anything else, yet in the world of negative opinion, i have yet to see so many people rail against this as much as GE.

Very Irresponsible!

[Karl Cocknozzle]

I can't believe he didn't say anything about ManBearPig! It is the biggest threat to public safety since the 1990s when Billy Joel gave up his driver's license, and it deserves more attention than it gets.

Outrageous!

I don't care what Al has to say.

[ToddInSF]

Unless he's ready to apologize for that bitch wife of his and her little past war on the independent music industry.

Re:I got to the "Al Gore" part...

[AK Marc]

Or all the Bush's, or anyone else. Oh wait, you aren't complaining about the problem, you are just irrationally identifying with one side to blame the other side. That makes you the biggest hypocrite, just not in DC.

Re:I got to the "Al Gore" part...

[AK Marc]

Maybe because he never claimed to invent the Internet.

He gets the hatred because the geeks refuse to understand that the best idea on the planet is mostly useless if it doesn't get developed into a product. He helped push the Internet into a product. His statements on the Internet weren't incorrect. It was just a few words were taken out of context and deliberately misrepresented. His obvious meaning was "he worked to privatize and open up the publicly owned and closed network that became the Internet." So evaluate what he meant, not focus on a statement he has since clarified multiple times.

He's no saint, but at least hate him for valid reasons, otherwise you just look like a loon.

Re:I got to the "Al Gore" part...

[unixisc]

I don't hate him, I just think he was way overrated as both a Senator (in which capacity he made the claims in question) as well as as VP (where he did squat

Re:I got to the "Al Gore" part...

[unixisc]

I forgot - anybody remember his 'open source web site'? - made famous here on /.

Re:I got to the "Al Gore" part...

[AK Marc]

What president in the last 100 years wasn't overrated?