I suspect the cost of implementing this mandate will far outweight the taxes collected. It will start to take out money from the economy at a time it does not need it. It will shut down small internet businesses that can not afford the tracking and accounting and auditing and reporting needed to do it. Only large businesses will be able to compete or you will have to hire a service to handle it for you. But that adds a tax on the tax.
Let you Congressman and Senators know how you feel about the issue. Let them know that this issues has not gone unnoticed. Let them know what you think the consequences of a mandate as described would be.
The problem with this kind of model if that it give a value in such a way that business men can start to calculate how much they should charge for a given pipe, even the pipe to your house. Quantizing everything, giving it value. Well to do that you have to Identify each kind of thing over that pipe, which means they have to know what each thing is, its type, its size, track on it save its value.
Two problems. The cost of doing that and saving that intformation is huge. Of course that would be factored into the cost in such a way that it did not look like you were getting that overhead. And all that juicy information left around for the government and law enforcement folks to monitor, even more than they currently do.
But it means the end of cheap phone, video, audio. Even though its profitable for them now. They will see the the opportunity to make billions, and control what you can see and do, if by nothing like pricing policy. Like that old fellow Watt the Secretary of the Interior. Who thought that all that public land in the parks and forests was under-producing and sold off large tracks of land for logging and mining etc. They will try to privatize the internet, turn it into a large cash cow as well as control the media, like they have been doing with radio and tv and print. The internet is currently the last frontier the right does not have a solid grip or a good deal of control.
I like your thinking about ways to objectify the process, but offhand I find one major flaw with your lineup design.
In a police lineup a suspect is in the lineup and the suspect is suspected of doing a crime. The person(s) who view the lineup have the task of trying to pick out that suspect because they were a witness and could recognize that individual from the other randomly similar people. This is a way of validating the selection and preventing an innocent person from being the only one in the room, "Yes thats him" giving a wrongful identification.
I think that the idea of charges of "Child Pornography" in this case is a wrongful application of the law. That laws intent was to protect children from preditors, in this case the Child is in jeapordy. What were they thinking? But that's off point.
In the case you suggest of trying to choose whether something is Pornographic or Child Pornographic, it is a discrimination problem. In your lineup none of the pictures might be pornographic, none. But the task of the viewer would be to try to find the one that does not belong, or fits their vision of pornographic. They would have the task to try to pick one, not recognizing the guilty one as in the traditional line up.
Auditors have the same issue. I have know of auditing teams that are sent into a company and told, you must find something wrong. If you don't you failed and probably will not get a bonus or be fired. Of course the IRS is different.
So the problem here is a natural bias to pick something which if the selection of other pictures for some reason are not of the same class, will give you biased picks.
I have the same problem with that kind of bias with trying to find equivalent properties for my Real Estate Tax assessement appeals.
I am not sure how to fix that problem with your design. I think is is an inherent problem with the design. Unless not picking any picture was felt to be a totally acceptable result then the design is flawed. And in legal terms, if the bar is "without a shadow of a doubt" well then it is a much higher bar. That is the bar for the defendant. I don't know of that bar is the same for this kind of subjective classification of evidence.
The obvious answer is affix Steer Horns to the top. Like the texans do to the front of their otherwise feminine White Cadillac's. Works every time, and no one will make the mistake of sitting on your laptop.
As a Programmer, thats programmer with a big P. I just finished working on a project with some 20's programmers. Their current framework and opensource knowledge is high. But several things having to do with experience came out. One was they said that I was the only person that they had ever heard that did not want to immediately work with the absolute lastest version of the framework we were dealing with. Having worked for a Bank for decades and knowing the price a framework shift can cost in unintended consiquences I just had to shake my head. One also used a Set class where a List was called for because it solved some obscure exception problem that we had not experienced. I tried to let him know that using the wrong data type would give him headaches down the road. He also would spend days looking for ways of getting the framework to do what he wanted when a half day of actual programming would do the same.
So in a world that filters on buzz words and technologies, what is lost is that fundemental activity of programming, which is an art, which is honed from experience, exposure and practice. You can tell the difference between a journeyman plumber and a master plumber. The master plumber walks in, looks at the problem, walks out to his van and brings back just what he needs and fixes the problem. He also know 10 ways to fix the problem and chooses what he thinks is most appropriate and all that in just a few seconds. Its the same with older (good) programmers. What they (hopefully I am in that class) do is subtle and efficient, like good engineering hidden from view, but just plain works, looking too simple and obvious to suggest that only one with long experience could have plopped that code down as naturally as they did.
As to the degree, that represents a condensed exposure to envirionments, techniques and approaches to thinking and solving problems that can be invaluable (if you pay attention).
But then employers have an advantage of being able to gather and lecture employees selling them on the idea that a union would kill their employment.
It seems that companies have the upper hand (ever since R.Regan started the union busting with the Air Traffic Controllers). Companies have the power, the money to dictate their salaries and the salaries of workers. I don't think the average worker really is behind the extreme (sometime 300 to 1) ratios of highest to lowest salaries within companies.
Just look at the abuses lately with the AIG bonuses. Lets say that tax payer money to one executive of say 1 mill dollar bonus. How many other workers could live on that money over a year. Say a salary of 50k a good wage. Lets double that for benefits and medical etc. 100k so 10 workers could have a good job for a year for 1 bonus. We are talking about $160Million so that means 1600 workers could have jobs and pay morgages and raise their kids and send them to college for the tax payer money given to those executive that took the risks that brought down AIG and the economy. So anything that would make unions easier to be created, could bring this out of balance salary structure back into balance.
Well to start out with. How are the crew members going to target just the terroists bracelet. I would suspect they couldn't and that all the people in the proximity of the signal would go into seizures. A small price to pay if your the one holding the braclet but not for all the screaming passengers.
But then wouldn't a terrorist just take their bracelet off, and maybe switch it with a look alike? Or just have a synthetic skin patch underneath that was non-conductive. Then the stewardess would be pushing her remote over and over and moving it around sending all those near into screaming shock as the terroist smiled and raised his gun higher.
But wait theirs more. Wouldn't a terrorist have his own shock unit and we have handed him the ability to subdue everyone on a plane for free? Well free to him expensive for us. Or if encrypted well he would just have to take over the planes unit to do the same.
Well then we might have to invest in biometrics on the shock unit so only a coded steward or stewardess could operate it.
But wait, what if they are sick, you would have to have the ability to recode it on-site. Well a terrorist could do that.
Well its a good product if you can sell it and have someone stupid enough to buy it. It looks like a way to take our money, take our freedom and make us vulnerable to attack all at the same time.
Let me weigh in here. The 15% capital gains tax is cheating most of the people. Those very rich that have millions of dollars in stocks and make their income from selling that stock, don't get that counted as income, but at 15% which is so much better than I am paying. You only get capital gains on a net increase in the worth of that stock, do that increase should be treated like an income. So if you invested in stock, and it did not appreciate you don't get any tax. But then lets say you bought some land, and the value went up, you would be taxed at the net increase as ordinary income. Seems resonable.
The problem we now have is the economic, tax, legal and business culture is allowing and fostering the accumulation of wealth and thereby power a few hands. This is dangerous for our society and for our democracy. What was done before was a very progressive tax up to 90% on the very rich and high capitals gains. There were still rich people, but the middle class was allowed to prosper (peaking just before Regan). Now that trend is changing and power is concentrating again. We can see that the neo-con executive is grabbing power, stealing elections. That has to be reversed for the sake of the country. You should be happy to pay income tax on your net gain. Or maybe there should be a law that grandfathers your current holding. Would that work for you?
Well it is interesting argument that you do not give the stated goals of Bin Laden any credence and feel you know his motivations. That sounds very much like the justifications we see for the war in Iraq (sorry occupation). First it was immenent threat from WMD's. Well there were none, they knew it but it had traction with the public. When it was found to be false, then it was well Al Qaeda is there. Well they weren't there. Hussan hated Al Qaeda and would not let him in his country. When that was pointed out, then it was to bring freedom and security to the Iraqies, when is was shown we could not do that, it was to fight terroism (by then a local group that allied themselves with Al Qaeda (which is not an organization per say, just a connective group between other existing seperate groups).
So maybe your right, maybe Bin Laden has an agenda like Bush and what was stated was just an excuse to further his agenda. But the facts are that Muslum countries for centuries have live in peaceful co-existance with the rest of the world with a leave me alone and I will leave you alone. So there is evidence that that can work. I would much rather make the assumption that someone is sincere about a feeling of violation of soverenty than some dark vision of world conquest, unless their from Texas of course.
"and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests?"
Well you have pointed out your view of the world with I must say is a very business oriented one. The Democratic view of 'US Interest' as is generally the veiw of non-conservatives is more people, human rights, freedoms, oriented. In Somalia and Kosovo there were gross human rights violations going on, can you say Genocide, rape, etc (at least where Slobodan Milosevi
Wiki entry:
"The Hague war crimes tribunal charged Milosevi with crimes against humanity, violating the laws or customs of war, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide for his role during the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo."
"The resulting famine caused the United Nations Security Council in 1992 to authorize the limited peacekeeping operation United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I). UNOSOM's use of force was limited to self-defence and it was soon disregarded by the warring factions. In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, the United States organised a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations. This coalition, (Unified Task Force or UNITAF) entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. In May 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II)."
That was fostered by a humanitarian disaster and part of a United Nations operation to prevent that disaster.
Now attacking a country on a trumped up pretext for Oil, now that is what this country wants its international presence to be. Very conservative business oriented of you.
If you were really a conservative then you would let the market do what it does, not invade helpless countries (like Iraq had a prayers chance, and no WMD's either).
We should try to stop fights and disasters not cause them. This administration has taken us down a greedy dark friendless road. Only one that you can enjoy in the safety of your gated community.
Well if you count letting the Fisa law lapse, holding 50 or so investigations nothing you are correct. They have moved legislation through, but more importantly, they are in a position to stop the kind of legislation that was going forward during the Republican controlled time from seeing the light of day.
The rumors were (and the republican talking point media mill) were gearing up for an invasion of Iran, that is until the election went the wrong way, then they were strangly silent, no more beating the war drums for war with Iran. Now the fact that Bush has to think about the Congress when he does things is the biggest brake on his behaviour. Also the fact that things are starting to come to light like this memo, cause him to spend more time spinning and damage control which makes it harder for him to get away with illegal or immoral acts. It is a little disquieting that the war drums have started up again. I think he feels that another war (maybe caused by our bombing Iranian nuclear facilities) might be a distraction from his other transgressions. I think he is wrong, this would just be his latest and worst transgression.
I think History will give him a swift kick in the arse.
"1) You are confusing two different wars in Iraq; only the first one preceded 9/11."
I was not refering to Iraq I but to Bush II's trying to find reasons to go to war with Iraq even before he was elected, after he was elected and before 911. I think there is good evidence and testimony to that effect, especially former CIA analysts that were presured into finding justifications to go into Iraq.
As to your other argument. Which I did mistake that you were saying that we can't protect ourselves from angry people and that Bin Laden like the OKC bombers were angry at the United States Government. My point was that that was true about the OKC bomber, a general flayling at the government, whereas Bin Laden had a more specific goal, that of getting our presence out of his country and the holy lands. I don't think he cares about what we do in our own country, just get out of his. I see that as a more reasonable attitude and one that maybe both you and I would support if say France had a military base in New Orleans, just for our safety and protection. That was my point. I see the motivation between the two very different. One could have been solved through some rational process the other probably never.
As to the risk, I agree it is small and the overreaction of the government smacks of an agenda of keeping and growing central power for the administration and its friends, along with some legitimate concerns about terrorism as a public health matter.
I see that the terroist issue should be handled as a police action and not a military one, as I think most if not all terroist authorities the I have heard comment on it have said.
Sometimes really bad ideas are pretty easy to see, when there is some background, research or anecdotal evidence to support that gut feeling of common sense being violated then it gives me pause to think that maybe what looks like shit and smells like shit, maybe you shouldn't taste it.
Oh another pathelogical example was the story (from the Silent Spring or another book like that) that told of the story of unintended consequences not unlike the point about the butterfly effect,
where an area decided to kill all the wolves in a area
The deer poplulation increased and the rutting deer destroyed trees by scraping antlers against the bark of trees.
The trees died and the beaver that had thrived in the area and had build many dams on a river in the valley, left because they did not have the food or wood they needed.
after a few years of no beavers and the beavers did not repair their dams. One broke which washed out the next one, which washed out the next. And the town in the valley was destroyed by the flood.
Not a butterfly causing an earthquake which I think is not that likely but stupid actions most often bring about stupid consequences.
"), although the term "butterfly effect" itself is related to the work of Edward Lorenz. In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal.506 instead of entering the full.506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenario.[2] Lorenz published his findings in a 1963 paper for the New York Academy of Sciences noting that "One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever." Later speeches and papers by Lorenz used the more poetic butterfly. According to Lorenz, upon failing to provide a title for a talk he was to present at the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1972, Philip Merilees concocted Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas as a title. "
Within a chaotic system like the weather system. Which is what I was talking about. Given the computer simulation for weather. Apparently the story is that a weather simulation was interrupted and they had to re-enter the data from a certain point from printouts to re-intialize the simulation, but left of the low order digits to save time. The difference in the inputs was very small. In the above example I think they were only showing the rhs of the number added and I think it was a whole series of numbers entered but a very small difference from the numbers printed out. As I remember, the simulation started up with the weather patterns looking much the same but diverged quickly and eventually the weather was very different. They had started not from the end apparently so they could compare results to see that the re-initiallized simulation was the same.
The point here is that weather is a chaotic system and that a small change now can have a marked change in the weather in a very short period of time. Look at our weather pedictions which only now go out about a week and even in a few days can be very different. Partly because we do not collect enough information, partly because our simulations are incomplete, but also because weather systems are inherently chaotic and we could never simulate that away from the system.
So my cautionary tail stands, weather is chaotic, mass weather control will alter weather not just in China, we do not know what that kind of wholesale weather modification will do, China has in the past done large (not always insightful, or informed) envirionment modification projects. I think this is a bad idea and that we (the world and the Chinese in specific) should learn from our past mistakes. The other thing we should avoid is concentration of power and an autocratic and authoritarian indiviual or group in control as that tends to exacerbate the situation (Iraq is a case in point).
I beg your pardon but a sheep is one that follows along with the crowd. I don't think that is what I am doing. There are several things going on, true people get pissed off, its not rational, there are mentally defective people who will do bad things. But neither of those should also cause me to loose my Constitutional freedoms or right to privacy, or to be afraid. Well political parties or groups with a social or political agenda are in the business of swaying public opinion, That is the nature of social organization. You should be swayed by good arguments, or you are a sheep following along with some ideology that tells you dont think, they are bad, we are good and right. The thing to do is present the argument that sways more pursuasivly, not invade a country, not torture people, no rendition, dont listen in on everyones phone calls and emails. State your argument and if your argument is not pursuasive, you loose.
Multle problems here. Many acedemic setting do not allow wikipedia refereces because they are not necesarrily accurate and unbiased and factual so the source is a bad reference.
Second it was the "procecutions hypothesis", if you think that a prosecutor is aways presenting the facts without also presenting defense arguments, well you only have one side of the debate, not the story.
Admittedly the OKC bombing was the work of a madman. No rational person is going to bomb and kill so many including innocent children because of tax increases and the Waco siege. Those are just justifications or cover for sociopathic behavior. And I do not feel that relates to the current situation. BTW my brother lives and works in OKC and was close by where he works when that happend and his Church which was close by was damaged as well.
To answer your question I did not support the elimination of tax increases in fact I have always supported a more progressive tax to protect our country from the concentration of wealth and power which is killing our country now. and I support and supported the FBI in keeping track of para military and cult organizations and when they commit illegal acts should be held accountable. I condemed the overreaction that happened at Waco as it was a needless waste of life.
That kind of heavy handed "We are the controllers and will do anything to be in control and have you submit" is exactly the attitude we have displayed in Iraq. My point was Saudi Arabia and Iraq are soveriegn nations. It is their home and Bin Laden thought it was a sacrilege our being in the Muslim holy land. Its their country and bombing of the trade center was Bin Ladens response to that. Bin Laden who was in Afganistan not Iraq. So what do we do, invade Afganistan, good, we had him cornered at Tora Bora,and the camera's showed that we let them all escape out the back way. Obviously Bush really did not want to capture the enemy that gave him so much power and authority at home. The we invade and occupy Iraq????? There were no weapons of mass distruction, Bush knew it, (did you see the Frontline program on Bush's war). Bush had asked people to find justification to go into Iraq even before 911. So the whole thing stinks. There is no good reason we went there and no good reason to stay.
which ended in disaster and famine. Well now its the weather. Too bad the weather in one part of the world effects all other parts, the butterfly effect.
Between genetic engineering on the "oh it will be alright, we have taken into consideration all the possible consequenses" and massive weather modification (for some games). I think we have made great evolutionary progress towards total survival and total good life for everone forever, don't you?
"The IT staff either is malicious or highly incompetent" Since it seems that only and all the emails that the House of representatives is looking for are missing (like the missing part of Nixon's tapes), I would think that the IT staff is probably complicit rather than incompetent (Oh wait who was that Arabian Horse guy in charge of FEMA during Katrina?) and being complicit they are equally at fault in this obstruction of justice. If it is pushed further, some low level head might fall like Scooter Libby, then get his sentence commuted (not pardoned, because he/she could turn states evidence because they had immunity whereas with a commutation I think Libby is still in jeapordy). When are we going to get fed up with this executive bull shit and comfiscate all those computers and servers, like they did with that Democratic Senators office? Isn't turnabout fair?
"I wonder what the Ars Technica/privacy zealots who oppose RealID protection will say when the next hijacked airliner is crashed into a building."
I'm sorry, "RealID protection" I fail to see how having an ID is protection at all. The topic of course is about peoples private information being looked at. We currently don't know if it was given to anyone or what purpose the access was done. But I suspect that the passport information contains things like passport number and SSN and other identifying information. Well identity theft is a serious costly issue to all of us, now isn't it. I would imagine that the information in the passport file would contain some lovely information that could be used for identity theft. That of course would be rather dumb for the celebrities this article is about, but it seems that only some of the more important names were flagged for the type of alert that caused this to be exposed. Who knows how many others have had their information comprimised, illegally I might add.
Now lets all get a database of information on everyone. That will solve the problem, require everyone to have an ID that they will be required to carry, that solves the problem doesn't it. Wait a minute what was the problem, identity theft? If someone has a fake ID that looks good, well then they are that person, if they have the background information like the ssn, address, and those little numbers on the back of the card, well then they are that person. Substituting an external tag for a person, substituting a copyable, forgable, piece of identification for a living breathing person, does not solve a problem, it only says we trust and ID more than we do a person, we trust our information database more than a living breathing citizen. If someone wanted to blow up a building, they can forge the documents, and pictures and the building will be history. Better to find out why anyone would want to blow up a building and see to it that the reasons don't exist. In the case of 911, it was our presence in the Middle East that Bin Laden was pissed about. That presence cost us the trade towers. We (the country leaders) of course wanted to be there and had no fear, because we are the super power, so there, bring it on.
Well a light year out.. hmmm assuming that the gamma rays are traveling as fast or as any signal from the satelites, we might probably will become aware of the gamma rays shortly before we become aware that the warning system has detected the rays.
Well unless we can get a good subspace link going. hmmm we will have to work on that one.
You'd think that all those religious zealots in Florida would have been able to read the signs, all those hurricanes that God sends to them to punish them for their incorrect beliefs that evolution is not God's Golden plan. It seems so obvious.
We don't know if a gamma burst didn't happen eon's ago and is on its way and might arrive sometime next month. Better to understand what possible risks might be. Also gives a interesting theory to start looking for evidence of gamma burst extinctions. If it turns out to have been a cause then we see we are even more fragile than we thought, with meteor strikes and methane releases from the oceans and lets not forget man's influences as potential earth busters. But if we find that it is one of the dangers then we can start thinking about strategies for coming out on the other side of the next one.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the cost of implementing this mandate will far outweight the taxes collected. It will start to take out money from the economy at a time it does not need it. It will shut down small internet businesses that can not afford the tracking and accounting and auditing and reporting needed to do it. Only large businesses will be able to compete or you will have to hire a service to handle it for you. But that adds a tax on the tax.
Let you Congressman and Senators know how you feel about the issue. Let them know that this issues has not gone unnoticed. Let them know what you think the consequences of a mandate as described would be.
The problem with this kind of model if that it give a value in such a way that business men can start to calculate how much they should charge for a given pipe, even the pipe to your house. Quantizing everything, giving it value. Well to do that you have to Identify each kind of thing over that pipe, which means they have to know what each thing is, its type, its size, track on it save its value.
Two problems. The cost of doing that and saving that intformation is huge. Of course that would be factored into the cost in such a way that it did not look like you were getting that overhead. And all that juicy information left around for the government and law enforcement folks to monitor, even more than they currently do.
But it means the end of cheap phone, video, audio. Even though its profitable for them now. They will see the the opportunity to make billions, and control what you can see and do, if by nothing like pricing policy. Like that old fellow Watt the Secretary of the Interior. Who thought that all that public land in the parks and forests was under-producing and sold off large tracks of land for logging and mining etc. They will try to privatize the internet, turn it into a large cash cow as well as control the media, like they have been doing with radio and tv and print. The internet is currently the last frontier the right does not have a solid grip or a good deal of control.
can you hear the bell tolling?
I like your thinking about ways to objectify the process, but offhand I find one major flaw with your lineup design.
In a police lineup a suspect is in the lineup and the suspect is suspected of doing a crime. The person(s) who view the lineup have the task of trying to pick out that suspect because they were a witness and could recognize that individual from the other randomly similar people. This is a way of validating the selection and preventing an innocent person from being the only one in the room, "Yes thats him" giving a wrongful identification.
I think that the idea of charges of "Child Pornography" in this case is a wrongful application of the law. That laws intent was to protect children from preditors, in this case the Child is in jeapordy. What were they thinking? But that's off point.
In the case you suggest of trying to choose whether something is Pornographic or Child Pornographic, it is a discrimination problem. In your lineup none of the pictures might be pornographic, none. But the task of the viewer would be to try to find the one that does not belong, or fits their vision of pornographic. They would have the task to try to pick one, not recognizing the guilty one as in the traditional line up.
Auditors have the same issue. I have know of auditing teams that are sent into a company and told, you must find something wrong. If you don't you failed and probably will not get a bonus or be fired. Of course the IRS is different.
So the problem here is a natural bias to pick something which if the selection of other pictures for some reason are not of the same class, will give you biased picks.
I have the same problem with that kind of bias with trying to find equivalent properties for my Real Estate Tax assessement appeals.
I am not sure how to fix that problem with your design. I think is is an inherent problem with the design. Unless not picking any picture was felt to be a totally acceptable result then the design is flawed. And in legal terms, if the bar is "without a shadow of a doubt" well then it is a much higher bar. That is the bar for the defendant. I don't know of that bar is the same for this kind of subjective classification of evidence.
The obvious answer is affix Steer Horns to the top. Like the texans do to the front of their otherwise feminine White Cadillac's. Works every time, and no one will make the mistake of sitting on your laptop.
--hook'em Horns
As a Programmer, thats programmer with a big P. I just finished working on a project with some 20's programmers. Their current framework and opensource knowledge is high. But several things having to do with experience came out. One was they said that I was the only person that they had ever heard that did not want to immediately work with the absolute lastest version of the framework we were dealing with. Having worked for a Bank for decades and knowing the price a framework shift can cost in unintended consiquences I just had to shake my head. One also used a Set class where a List was called for because it solved some obscure exception problem that we had not experienced. I tried to let him know that using the wrong data type would give him headaches down the road. He also would spend days looking for ways of getting the framework to do what he wanted when a half day of actual programming would do the same.
So in a world that filters on buzz words and technologies, what is lost is that fundemental activity of programming, which is an art, which is honed from experience, exposure and practice. You can tell the difference between a journeyman plumber and a master plumber. The master plumber walks in, looks at the problem, walks out to his van and brings back just what he needs and fixes the problem. He also know 10 ways to fix the problem and chooses what he thinks is most appropriate and all that in just a few seconds. Its the same with older (good) programmers. What they (hopefully I am in that class) do is subtle and efficient, like good engineering hidden from view, but just plain works, looking too simple and obvious to suggest that only one with long experience could have plopped that code down as naturally as they did.
As to the degree, that represents a condensed exposure to envirionments, techniques and approaches to thinking and solving problems that can be invaluable (if you pay attention).
But then employers have an advantage of being able to gather and lecture employees selling
them on the idea that a union would kill their employment.
It seems that companies have the upper hand (ever since R.Regan started the union busting with the Air Traffic Controllers). Companies have the power, the money to dictate their salaries and the salaries of workers. I don't think the average worker really is behind the extreme (sometime 300 to 1) ratios of highest to lowest salaries within companies.
Just look at the abuses lately with the AIG bonuses. Lets say that tax payer money to one executive of say 1 mill dollar bonus. How many other workers could live on that money over a year. Say a salary of 50k a good wage. Lets double that for benefits and medical etc.
100k so 10 workers could have a good job for a year for 1 bonus. We are talking about $160Million so that means 1600 workers could have jobs and pay morgages and raise their kids and send them to college for the tax payer money given to those executive that took the risks that brought down AIG and the economy. So anything that would make unions easier to be created, could bring this out of balance salary structure back into balance.
Just put one in the front and one in the back. Station a non-sleeper at each with a com-link, problem solved.
If everyone does it the the ones on the sides are not needed.
Well to start out with. How are the crew members going to target just the terroists bracelet. I would suspect they couldn't and that all the people in the proximity of the signal would go into seizures. A small price to pay if your the one holding the braclet but not for all the screaming passengers.
But then wouldn't a terrorist just take their bracelet off, and maybe switch it with a look alike? Or just have a synthetic skin patch underneath that was non-conductive. Then the stewardess would be pushing her remote over and over and moving it around sending all those near into screaming shock as the terroist smiled and raised his gun higher.
But wait theirs more. Wouldn't a terrorist have his own shock unit and we have handed him the ability to subdue everyone on a plane for free? Well free to him expensive for us. Or if encrypted well he would just have to take over the planes unit to do the same.
Well then we might have to invest in biometrics on the shock unit so only a coded steward or stewardess could operate it.
But wait, what if they are sick, you would have to have the ability to recode it on-site. Well a terrorist could do that.
Well its a good product if you can sell it and have someone stupid enough to buy it. It looks like a way to take our money, take our freedom and make us vulnerable to attack all at the same time.
Let me weigh in here. The 15% capital gains tax is cheating most of the people. Those very rich that have millions of dollars in stocks and make their income from selling that stock, don't get that counted as income, but at 15% which is so much better than I am paying. You only get capital gains on a net increase in the worth of that stock, do that increase should be treated like an income. So if you invested in stock, and it did not appreciate you don't get any tax. But then lets say you bought some land, and the value went up, you would be taxed at the net increase as ordinary income. Seems resonable.
The problem we now have is the economic, tax, legal and business culture is allowing and fostering the accumulation of wealth and thereby power a few hands. This is dangerous for our society and for our democracy. What was done before was a very progressive tax up to 90% on the very rich and high capitals gains. There were still rich people, but the middle class was allowed to prosper (peaking just before Regan). Now that trend is changing and power is concentrating again. We can see that the neo-con executive is grabbing power, stealing elections. That has to be reversed for the sake of the country. You should be happy to pay income tax on your net gain. Or maybe there should be a law that grandfathers your current holding. Would that work for you?
Well it is interesting argument that you do not give the stated goals of Bin Laden any credence and feel you know his motivations. That sounds very much like the justifications we see for the war in Iraq (sorry occupation). First it was immenent threat from WMD's. Well there were none, they knew it but it had traction with the public. When it was found to be false, then it was well Al Qaeda is there. Well they weren't there. Hussan hated Al Qaeda and would not let him in his country. When that was pointed out, then it was to bring freedom and security to the Iraqies, when is was shown we could not do that, it was to fight terroism (by then a local group that allied themselves with Al Qaeda (which is not an organization per say, just a connective group between other existing seperate groups).
So maybe your right, maybe Bin Laden has an agenda like Bush and what was stated was just an excuse to further his agenda. But the facts are that Muslum countries for centuries have live in peaceful co-existance with the rest of the world with a leave me alone and I will leave you alone. So there is evidence that that can work. I would much rather make the assumption that someone is sincere about a feeling of violation of soverenty than some dark vision of world conquest, unless their from Texas of course.
Hmmmm..
"and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests?"
Well you have pointed out your view of the world with I must say is a very business oriented one. The Democratic view of 'US Interest' as is generally the veiw of non-conservatives is more people, human rights, freedoms, oriented. In Somalia and Kosovo there were gross human rights violations going on, can you say Genocide, rape, etc (at least where Slobodan Milosevi
Wiki entry:
"The Hague war crimes tribunal charged Milosevi with crimes against humanity, violating the laws or customs of war, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide for his role during the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87
as to Somolia:
"The resulting famine caused the United Nations Security Council in 1992 to authorize the limited peacekeeping operation United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I). UNOSOM's use of force was limited to self-defence and it was soon disregarded by the warring factions. In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, the United States organised a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations. This coalition, (Unified Task Force or UNITAF) entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. In May 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
That was fostered by a humanitarian disaster and part of a United Nations operation to prevent that disaster.
Now attacking a country on a trumped up pretext for Oil, now that is what this country wants its international presence to be. Very conservative business oriented of you.
If you were really a conservative then you would let the market do what it does, not invade helpless countries (like Iraq had a prayers chance, and no WMD's either).
We should try to stop fights and disasters not cause them. This administration has taken us down a greedy dark friendless road. Only one that you can enjoy in the safety of your gated community.
Well if you count letting the Fisa law lapse, holding 50 or so investigations nothing you are correct. They have moved legislation through, but more importantly, they are in a position to stop the kind of legislation that was going forward during the Republican controlled time from seeing the light of day.
The rumors were (and the republican talking point media mill) were gearing up for an invasion of Iran, that is until the election went the wrong way, then they were strangly silent, no more beating the war drums for war with Iran. Now the fact that Bush has to think about the Congress when he does things is the biggest brake on his behaviour. Also the fact that things are starting to come to light like this memo, cause him to spend more time spinning and damage control which makes it harder for him to get away with illegal or immoral acts. It is a little disquieting that the war drums have started up again. I think he feels that another war (maybe caused by our bombing Iranian nuclear facilities) might be a distraction from his other transgressions. I think he is wrong, this would just be his latest and worst transgression.
I think History will give him a swift kick in the arse.
Almost right.
"1) You are confusing two different wars in Iraq; only the first one preceded 9/11."
I was not refering to Iraq I but to Bush II's trying to find reasons to go to war with Iraq even before he was elected, after he was elected and before 911. I think there is good evidence and testimony to that effect, especially former CIA analysts that were presured into finding justifications to go into Iraq.
As to your other argument. Which I did mistake that you were saying that we can't protect ourselves from angry people and that Bin Laden like the OKC bombers were angry at the United States Government. My point was that that was true about the OKC bomber, a general flayling at the government, whereas Bin Laden had a more specific goal, that of getting our presence out of his country and the holy lands. I don't think he cares about what we do in our own country, just get out of his. I see that as a more reasonable attitude and one that maybe both you and I would support if say France had a military base in New Orleans, just for our safety and protection. That was my point. I see the motivation between the two very different. One could have been solved through some rational process the other probably never.
As to the risk, I agree it is small and the overreaction of the government smacks of an agenda of keeping and growing central power for the administration and its friends, along with some legitimate concerns about terrorism as a public health matter.
I see that the terroist issue should be handled as a police action and not a military one, as I think most if not all terroist authorities the I have heard comment on it have said.
Sometimes really bad ideas are pretty easy to see, when there is some background, research or anecdotal evidence to support that gut feeling of common sense being violated then it gives me pause to think that maybe what looks like shit and smells like shit, maybe you shouldn't taste it.
Don't you think.
Oh another pathelogical example was the story (from the Silent Spring or another book like that) that told of the story of unintended consequences not unlike the point about the butterfly effect,
where an area decided to kill all the wolves in a area
The deer poplulation increased and the rutting deer destroyed trees by scraping antlers against the bark of trees.
The trees died and the beaver that had thrived in the area and had build many dams on a river in the valley, left because they did not have the food or wood they needed.
after a few years of no beavers and the beavers did not repair their dams. One broke which
washed out the next one, which washed out the next. And the town in the valley was destroyed by the flood.
Not a butterfly causing an earthquake which I think is not that likely but stupid actions most often bring about stupid consequences.
Actually, (from wikipedia)
.506 instead of entering the full .506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenario.[2] Lorenz published his findings in a 1963 paper for the New York Academy of Sciences noting that "One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever." Later speeches and papers by Lorenz used the more poetic butterfly. According to Lorenz, upon failing to provide a title for a talk he was to present at the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1972, Philip Merilees concocted Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas as a title.
"), although the term "butterfly effect" itself is related to the work of Edward Lorenz. In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Within a chaotic system like the weather system. Which is what I was talking about. Given the computer simulation for weather. Apparently the story is that a weather simulation was interrupted and they had to re-enter the data from a certain point from printouts to re-intialize the simulation, but left of the low order digits to save time. The difference in the inputs was very small. In the above example I think they were only showing the rhs of the number added and I think it was a whole series of numbers entered but a very small difference from the numbers printed out. As I remember, the simulation started up with the weather patterns looking much the same but diverged quickly and eventually the weather was very different. They had started not from the end apparently so they could compare results to see that the re-initiallized simulation was the same.
The point here is that weather is a chaotic system and that a small change now can have a marked change in the weather in a very short period of time. Look at our weather pedictions which only now go out about a week and even in a few days can be very different. Partly because we do not collect enough information, partly because our simulations are incomplete, but also because weather systems are inherently chaotic and we could never simulate that away from the system.
So my cautionary tail stands, weather is chaotic, mass weather control will alter weather not just in China, we do not know what that kind of wholesale weather modification will do, China has in the past done large (not always insightful, or informed) envirionment modification projects. I think this is a bad idea and that we (the world and the Chinese in specific) should learn from our past mistakes. The other thing we should avoid is concentration of power and an autocratic and authoritarian indiviual or group in control as that tends to exacerbate the situation (Iraq is a case in point).
I beg your pardon but a sheep is one that follows along with the crowd. I don't think that is what I am doing. There are several things going on, true people get pissed off, its not rational, there are mentally defective people who will do bad things. But neither of those should also cause me to loose my Constitutional freedoms or right to privacy, or to be afraid. Well political parties or groups with a social or political agenda are in the business of swaying public opinion, That is the nature of social organization. You should be swayed by good arguments, or you are a sheep following along with some ideology that tells you dont think, they are bad, we are good and right. The thing to do is present the argument that sways more pursuasivly, not invade a country, not torture people, no rendition, dont listen in on everyones phone calls and emails. State your argument and if your argument is not pursuasive, you loose.
Multle problems here. Many acedemic setting do not allow wikipedia refereces because they are not necesarrily accurate and unbiased and factual so the source is a bad reference.
,and the camera's showed that we let them all escape out the back way. Obviously Bush really did not want to capture the enemy that gave him so much power and authority at home. The we invade and occupy Iraq????? There were no weapons of mass distruction, Bush knew it, (did you see the Frontline program on Bush's war). Bush had asked people to find justification to go into Iraq even before 911. So the whole thing stinks. There is no good reason we went there and no good reason to stay.
Second it was the "procecutions hypothesis", if you think that a prosecutor is aways presenting the facts without also presenting defense arguments, well you only have one side of the debate, not the story.
Admittedly the OKC bombing was the work of a madman. No rational person is going to bomb and kill so many including innocent children because of tax increases and the Waco siege. Those are just justifications or cover for sociopathic behavior. And I do not feel that relates to the current situation. BTW my brother lives and works in OKC and was close by where he works when that happend and his Church which was close by was damaged as well.
To answer your question I did not support the elimination of tax increases in fact I have always supported a more progressive tax to protect our country from the concentration of wealth and power which is killing our country now. and I support and supported the FBI in keeping track of para military and cult organizations and when they commit illegal acts should be held accountable. I condemed the overreaction that happened at Waco as it was a needless waste of life.
That kind of heavy handed "We are the controllers and will do anything to be in control and have you submit" is exactly the attitude we have displayed in Iraq. My point was Saudi Arabia and Iraq are soveriegn nations. It is their home and Bin Laden thought it was a sacrilege our being in the Muslim holy land. Its their country and bombing of the trade center was Bin Ladens response to that. Bin Laden who was in Afganistan not Iraq. So what do we do, invade Afganistan, good, we had him cornered at Tora Bora
In the 50's Mao had some ideas about what enemies to fight (and mobilize the population against).
"the country's biggest four evils - rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows? "
Read the article (those of you who don't know this important bit of history so we don't repeat it)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3371659.stm
which ended in disaster and famine. Well now its the weather. Too bad the weather in one part of the world effects all other parts, the butterfly effect.
Between genetic engineering on the "oh it will be alright, we have taken into consideration all the possible consequenses" and massive weather modification (for some games). I think we have made great evolutionary progress towards total survival and total good life for everone forever, don't you?
"The IT staff either is malicious or highly incompetent" Since it seems that only and all the emails that the House of representatives is looking for are missing (like the missing part of Nixon's tapes), I would think that the IT staff is probably complicit rather than incompetent (Oh wait who was that Arabian Horse guy in charge of FEMA during Katrina?) and being complicit they are equally at fault in this obstruction of justice. If it is pushed further, some low level head might fall like Scooter Libby, then get his sentence commuted (not pardoned, because he/she could turn states evidence because they had immunity whereas with a commutation I think Libby is still in jeapordy). When are we going to get fed up with this executive bull shit and comfiscate all those computers and servers, like they did with that Democratic Senators office? Isn't turnabout fair?
"I wonder what the Ars Technica/privacy zealots who oppose RealID protection will say when the next hijacked airliner is crashed into a building."
I'm sorry, "RealID protection" I fail to see how having an ID is protection at all. The topic of course is about peoples private information being looked at. We currently don't know if it was given to anyone or what purpose the access was done. But I suspect that the passport information contains things like passport number and SSN and other identifying information. Well identity theft is a serious costly issue to all of us, now isn't it. I would imagine that the information in the passport file would contain some lovely information that could be used for identity theft. That of course would be rather dumb for the celebrities this article is about, but it seems that only some of the more important names were flagged for the type of alert that caused this to be exposed. Who knows how many others have had their information comprimised, illegally I might add.
Now lets all get a database of information on everyone. That will solve the problem, require everyone to have an ID that they will be required to carry, that solves the problem doesn't it. Wait a minute what was the problem, identity theft? If someone has a fake ID that looks good, well then they are that person, if they have the background information like the ssn, address, and those little numbers on the back of the card, well then they are that person. Substituting an external tag for a person, substituting a copyable, forgable, piece of identification for a living breathing person, does not solve a problem, it only says we trust and ID more than we do a person, we trust our information database more than a living breathing citizen. If someone wanted to blow up a building, they can forge the documents, and pictures and the building will be history. Better to find out why anyone would want to blow up a building and see to it that the reasons don't exist. In the case of 911, it was our presence in the Middle East that Bin Laden was pissed about. That presence cost us the trade towers. We (the country leaders) of course wanted to be there and had no fear, because we are the super power, so there, bring it on.
Those who can't do Teach, those who can't teach, Teach Teachers.
Well a light year out.. hmmm assuming that the gamma rays are traveling as fast or as any signal from the satelites, we might probably will become aware of the gamma rays shortly before we become aware that the warning system has detected the rays.
Well unless we can get a good subspace link going. hmmm we will have to work on that one.
You'd think that all those religious zealots in Florida would have been able to read the signs, all those hurricanes that God sends to them to punish them for their incorrect beliefs that evolution is not God's Golden plan. It seems so obvious.
We don't know if a gamma burst didn't happen eon's ago and is on its way and might arrive sometime next month. Better to understand what possible risks might be. Also gives a interesting theory to start looking for evidence of gamma burst extinctions. If it turns out to have been a cause then we see we are even more fragile than we thought, with meteor strikes and methane releases from the oceans and lets not forget man's influences as potential earth busters. But if we find that it is one of the dangers then we can start thinking about strategies for coming out on the other side of the next one.