Imagine if either party actually represented the people they were elected to represent.
Here's the problem: they ACTUALLY DO. That's what gerry-mandering means. Those elected representatives ACTUALLY represent the will of the people. What we're seeing isn't a problem of Congress. What we're seeing is one American cultural tribe (ultra-conservative whites) going all-out to retake their fading dominance over the American culture at large.
Anyone care to guess when Britain, Australia, or Canada will elect a non-white Prime Minister? Or when Japan or China will elect a non-Japanese/Chinese Premier or President, respectively? Or when Russia will "elect" a non-Russian President? Or when Israel will elect a non-Jewish Prime Minister. The US (and South Africa) may have a lot of faults, but I must second the parent post above: only the US and South Africa have made constitutional stands against racism, and stuck with it. Both nations have elected minority leaders, and stuck with them (South Africa, arguably, has a harder time with race politics because of a black super-majority). The United States IS exceptional in many regards, not least because despite our faults, we make concerted efforts to stick to the founding principles of our country. Most other nations were founded on the basis of a super-majority culture, not on ideals.
I'd be willing to bet that no human had a direct hand in this, and that no fraud was involved. After all, that money was made because an algorithm took the opposite bet--that rates would change.
Science is damn good at discovering, explaining, and building the material world we live in. As long as whatever in question is material, consistent with a fundamental set of laws, and subject to empirical testing, then Science is supreme. When the subject at hand starts varying into anomalous findings and strange inconsistencies that Science as a way of knowing starts foundering.
Self edit: the author of Ghost Hunters is Deborah Blum. Don't know why I came up with "Rebecah"She's a Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer. So I'd say she's got the chops to present the evidence correctly.
William James and the Society for Psychic Research in both the US and Britain would beg to differ with you. Their book, "Phantasms of the Living" documented thousands of doppleganger incidents. "Ghost Hunters" by Rebecah Blum (http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Scientific-ebook/dp/B0024CEZPS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380054272&sr=8-1&keywords=ghost+hunters+blum), covers this in detail. Also, Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer wrote "Extraordinary Knowing" (http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Skepticism-Inexplicable-ebook/dp/B000OI0G16/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380054515&sr=1-1&keywords=extraordinary+knowing). Your statement that "there has never been any indication that the supernatural exists at all" is patently false and a shining example of materialist psuedo-skepticism.
Sadly, you are probably wrong in your assertion. "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum indicates that the soul does exist, and that we do have scientific evidence of it. http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958. William James and a bunch of well-educated scientists amassed a mountain of evidence, and even though they were able to prove 95% of it was false, there was a remaining 5% that strongly indicates the soul exists, and that there is an afterlife. What worries me is if the scientific establishment ever decides to pick this up again and chart it.
But I'm hoping we never actually prove that souls exist. That's one door I'd prefer to remain closed. If science determined that souls exist, then we'd be figuring out ways to harness souls for energy. And then that'd bring up the whole question of what else is out there in that sphere of reality--and I'd really rather not draw a Nyarlathotep-analogue's attention.
I object to the usage of the term, "Fugly" when applied to a Nissan Leaf. A Nissan Leaf is not "fugly". Glimpsing one does not immediately drive me to look for a blunt object with which to smash my balls into paste. That car is merely ugly, or oogly if you want to go the next level up. "Fugly" should be reserved for those sights which drive a sane man to seriously consider castration, gnawing both arms off, and immediate hithering to a monastery as acceptable life paths.
Interesting. So, assuming one deregulated in the method you described, how would the process of de-regulating and then re-regulating at an agreed-upon minimum work? And who would ensure the level playing field plus guard the process against inappropriate gaming of the system? Also, very good point about Network Neutrality enforcing an artificial level playing field. I can see the corporatists wanting to remove Network Neutrality, but wanting regulation to remain--only tilted in their individual employer's favor.
I agree with you--I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that charging "on both sides of the equation" is an excellent and profitable business plan. Net Neutrality is awful if you're a large ISP with the ability to generate your own content. You're being treated like a "dumb pipe", you're creating your own content, and you're generating profit... but there's giganto-fucking-CHINA-sized potential profit surging through YOUR pipes that you're not allowed to touch because of federal regulations. If you're a MBA Program Manager/Sales Director/VP Sales/Marketing Manager/PHB with a mandate to increase stockholder value and you work for one of these ISPs, this is an intolerable situation. You can NOT simply sit there and say "I'm going to content myself with $7M a year in profit, when if the rules changed I could be pulling in $700M". If you don't charge in and grab it, then you fear your counterpart at your competitor will.
THIS. Remember, a corporation's mandate is to maximize profit for their shareholders. They will pursue this strategy at all costs, because it's the rule of the game--and MBAs/PHBs do what they do because they perceive the function of business to be one big game. I'd be interested to hear a libertarian's take on this, because this is, to me, a bright shining example of the divide between Libertarianism and Corporatism. That's a philosophical divide worth examining and reviewing, because Libertarians aren't Corporatists (though Corporatists love Libertarianism because it's the perfect justification for what they do).
This idea would destroy the world-wide economy so fast we'd all be back in the stone age before we knew it. Corporations exist to give groups of people the ability to use resources to produce a product without having to put their personal wealth, resources, or health on the line. If your idea were to take hold, absolutely no one would want to do anything for fear of someone else taking advantage of them. Or worse, declaring them to be a criminal and thus seizing their entire company and all their personal items.
Forget "rockstars", I'm more interested in a working definition of a "numbnut" now. What is the definition of a programming numbnut that manages to be marginally retainable/employable?
And those National Guardsmen executed the students. Undertrained or not, they were National Guardsmen who'd been through boot camp. They knew what and who they were pointing those guns at. And they still pulled the triggers.
Pinochet and his cronies became unable to tell the difference between innocents who disagreed with government policy, and actual Stalinists. After a short while anyone who disagreed with him disappeared. That's the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
There's at least two in the New Testament, and according to Bart Ehrmann, perhaps more. The real Paul, and then others ghost-writing as him.
Imagine if either party actually represented the people they were elected to represent.
Here's the problem: they ACTUALLY DO. That's what gerry-mandering means. Those elected representatives ACTUALLY represent the will of the people. What we're seeing isn't a problem of Congress. What we're seeing is one American cultural tribe (ultra-conservative whites) going all-out to retake their fading dominance over the American culture at large.
Anyone care to guess when Britain, Australia, or Canada will elect a non-white Prime Minister? Or when Japan or China will elect a non-Japanese/Chinese Premier or President, respectively? Or when Russia will "elect" a non-Russian President? Or when Israel will elect a non-Jewish Prime Minister. The US (and South Africa) may have a lot of faults, but I must second the parent post above: only the US and South Africa have made constitutional stands against racism, and stuck with it. Both nations have elected minority leaders, and stuck with them (South Africa, arguably, has a harder time with race politics because of a black super-majority). The United States IS exceptional in many regards, not least because despite our faults, we make concerted efforts to stick to the founding principles of our country. Most other nations were founded on the basis of a super-majority culture, not on ideals.
I'd be willing to bet that no human had a direct hand in this, and that no fraud was involved. After all, that money was made because an algorithm took the opposite bet--that rates would change.
Science is damn good at discovering, explaining, and building the material world we live in. As long as whatever in question is material, consistent with a fundamental set of laws, and subject to empirical testing, then Science is supreme. When the subject at hand starts varying into anomalous findings and strange inconsistencies that Science as a way of knowing starts foundering.
THAT is an interesting concept. I like it.
Yeah, duly noted. I screwed up the links and the names.
Self edit: the author of Ghost Hunters is Deborah Blum. Don't know why I came up with "Rebecah"She's a Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer. So I'd say she's got the chops to present the evidence correctly.
William James and the Society for Psychic Research in both the US and Britain would beg to differ with you. Their book, "Phantasms of the Living" documented thousands of doppleganger incidents. "Ghost Hunters" by Rebecah Blum (http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Scientific-ebook/dp/B0024CEZPS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380054272&sr=8-1&keywords=ghost+hunters+blum), covers this in detail. Also, Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer wrote "Extraordinary Knowing" (http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Skepticism-Inexplicable-ebook/dp/B000OI0G16/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380054515&sr=1-1&keywords=extraordinary+knowing). Your statement that "there has never been any indication that the supernatural exists at all" is patently false and a shining example of materialist psuedo-skepticism.
And you're not helping any with that snipe.
Sadly, you are probably wrong in your assertion. "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum indicates that the soul does exist, and that we do have scientific evidence of it. http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958. William James and a bunch of well-educated scientists amassed a mountain of evidence, and even though they were able to prove 95% of it was false, there was a remaining 5% that strongly indicates the soul exists, and that there is an afterlife. What worries me is if the scientific establishment ever decides to pick this up again and chart it.
Hopefully it involves Sriracha, bears, and blasphemous sexual positions.
But I'm hoping we never actually prove that souls exist. That's one door I'd prefer to remain closed. If science determined that souls exist, then we'd be figuring out ways to harness souls for energy. And then that'd bring up the whole question of what else is out there in that sphere of reality--and I'd really rather not draw a Nyarlathotep-analogue's attention.
I object to the usage of the term, "Fugly" when applied to a Nissan Leaf. A Nissan Leaf is not "fugly". Glimpsing one does not immediately drive me to look for a blunt object with which to smash my balls into paste. That car is merely ugly, or oogly if you want to go the next level up. "Fugly" should be reserved for those sights which drive a sane man to seriously consider castration, gnawing both arms off, and immediate hithering to a monastery as acceptable life paths.
Thank you for the education. It is much appreciated :)
Interesting. So, assuming one deregulated in the method you described, how would the process of de-regulating and then re-regulating at an agreed-upon minimum work? And who would ensure the level playing field plus guard the process against inappropriate gaming of the system? Also, very good point about Network Neutrality enforcing an artificial level playing field. I can see the corporatists wanting to remove Network Neutrality, but wanting regulation to remain--only tilted in their individual employer's favor.
I agree with you--I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that charging "on both sides of the equation" is an excellent and profitable business plan. Net Neutrality is awful if you're a large ISP with the ability to generate your own content. You're being treated like a "dumb pipe", you're creating your own content, and you're generating profit... but there's giganto-fucking-CHINA-sized potential profit surging through YOUR pipes that you're not allowed to touch because of federal regulations. If you're a MBA Program Manager/Sales Director/VP Sales/Marketing Manager/PHB with a mandate to increase stockholder value and you work for one of these ISPs, this is an intolerable situation. You can NOT simply sit there and say "I'm going to content myself with $7M a year in profit, when if the rules changed I could be pulling in $700M". If you don't charge in and grab it, then you fear your counterpart at your competitor will.
THIS. Remember, a corporation's mandate is to maximize profit for their shareholders. They will pursue this strategy at all costs, because it's the rule of the game--and MBAs/PHBs do what they do because they perceive the function of business to be one big game. I'd be interested to hear a libertarian's take on this, because this is, to me, a bright shining example of the divide between Libertarianism and Corporatism. That's a philosophical divide worth examining and reviewing, because Libertarians aren't Corporatists (though Corporatists love Libertarianism because it's the perfect justification for what they do).
This idea would destroy the world-wide economy so fast we'd all be back in the stone age before we knew it. Corporations exist to give groups of people the ability to use resources to produce a product without having to put their personal wealth, resources, or health on the line. If your idea were to take hold, absolutely no one would want to do anything for fear of someone else taking advantage of them. Or worse, declaring them to be a criminal and thus seizing their entire company and all their personal items.
Forget "rockstars", I'm more interested in a working definition of a "numbnut" now. What is the definition of a programming numbnut that manages to be marginally retainable/employable?
And those National Guardsmen executed the students. Undertrained or not, they were National Guardsmen who'd been through boot camp. They knew what and who they were pointing those guns at. And they still pulled the triggers.
Correct, but it is a damn good strategy in terms of stacking the deck for future success.
Amen to this. A well-trained family dog is a damn good babysitter. Particularly a large one who's reasonably intelligent.
Pinochet and his cronies became unable to tell the difference between innocents who disagreed with government policy, and actual Stalinists. After a short while anyone who disagreed with him disappeared. That's the problem.
Good for you :)