It's not true about Bush and the war. The liberals thought Obama would end the war and close GITMO and stop drones etc. When he didn't , they turned on him. Liberals generally are very angry and disappointed with Obama from his war record to his environmental record.
Now people OTHER than hard right conservatives and OTHER than very left liberals think Obama is OK, did what he could with what he had and what reality handed him in terms of Congress and Senate make up and I am one fo those.
About being socialist, I am for a system which limits both government and individual power. All evil comes from gross power inequality and unaccountability . Evil is a form of bullying whereby the bully has seeks or obtains power over the bullied. That includes financial power, political unaccountabilty and opacity . I am for freedom FROM X as well as freedom TO X, transparency and maximum information.
I think incomes should be leveled by taxes far far more than they are. We don't need a world run for and by billionaires and the PR campaigns they pay for. I could give a fuck about your right to be a billionaire. All power corrupts everyone always. That's as close to a universal as you're going to get and we have to stop people from becoming over-powered and overpowering those around them. No, I don't care about your "freedom" in this regard, which is more properly termed "fweedom" and which is nothing the "freedom to " make it impossible for people to have "freedom from" you.
I think government should be far far far more transparent and we should use technology to achieve this whether they like it or not, no matter what they say or who says it or what specter of horrible consequences they invoke.
I think the greatest lie detection / truth discovering machine we've ever built or can think to build is the peer-reviewed application of the scientific method we call "science" and that a lot of taxes should go to it and to the creation of technology which promote the general welfare, especially the efficient the production of food (new, meat that's grown in labs is a good example) and the exploration of nano technology etc. which will make impossible things possible, medicine and alternative energy.
I think other things but that's a start. I don't consider myself a socialist, I consider myself a rationalist.
You're confusing a literal democracy with Democracy. A democratic republic It's a democratic form of government. It's not majority rule or direct democracy, At any rate the distinction being made is the difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms.
A representative Republic is not a form of lawless despotism.
because one of the parties wants it? Fuck you. The purpose of the law is to serve the greater needs of society, not the parties involved in a lawsuit. A LOT of shit goes down in terms of in and out of court settlements and wrongdoing that has the effect of frustrating researchers trying to ferret out and understand important trends and practices in society because of this secrecy. This does not serve the greater needs of society, in fact, just the fucking opposite.
We have a serious problem with the integrity of the justice system. It's mainly because of worries about national security. Those worries go directly to a part of the minds of the individuals involved, the decision makers, and interact with inchoate, unconscious, individually-derived, unexamined, unspoken, irrational fears of death, chaos, disorder and loss of control.
What we're getting from this is a lot of law breaking and attempted law breaking on the part of the authorities who are basing decisions on the contents of their own personal unconscious.
Essentially everything, every breach of secrecy, every challenge to the ways and means they've decided upon, in some cases every utterance and especially anyone displaying an attitude of contempt for America is processed as some sort of potential disaster of absolute and unrecoverable proportions and justifies every kind of abuse.
9-11 made us lose perspective of a lot of things we need to keep perspective on in order to achieve real security and also to maintain our way of life, e.g. democracy.
One of those things is the fact that people may hate us for perfectly reasonable causes from their perspective because war involves the injection of unfairness by Bad People followed by an attempt to reduce, mitigate and unfortunately redistribute that unfairness. That's the morality of drones. As soon as the extremists in Waziristan decide someone's going to die, our job is to make that dying redistribute to them and unfortunately those close to them, but in any event it's not going to be their intended target. The morality of it is, we didn't decide anyone has to die in the first place- they did.
We have to consciously and collectively decide what we're wiling to put up in terms of terrorism in order to sustain our way of life . We aren't doing that.
The answer can't be "nothing ever gets through" because no one can promise that anyways and only the total corruption of our government lies down that road.
Maybe one day their will be a DIY doomsday technology. When that day comes, and I think it will, we will have to have worked out a way for us to keep ourselves free and keep ourselves safe. In order to have achieved that, we have to start talking publicly about tradeoffs between security and freedom, gotten the unconscious, hysterical motivations out of the collective closet, created a means to know what needs to be known and a means to deliberately not know what doesn't need to be known.
The government is hysterical. More precisely, the people in the government are so afraid of making a mistake , not having turned over the right rock, that they're breaking the law.
I have to add that the insane, vituperative politics which treats every potential national security error as a form of treason plays into this too.
" When they inflate the currency, they dont create new value - they just suck some of the value out of the old currency"
Wrong. When we inject more money into the world's economy, we make it possible for the billions of people who would like to participate in the economy to do so.
Increasing the money supply is not what inflation is; inflation is increasing prices for the same (or worse) good and service. In a world financial system in which literally billions of people want to have more money , enough to live a life other than subsistence farming, begging and scrounging through garbage dumps, there has to be a corresponding increase in the money supply so they can have some money.
How much money should be in circulation now? No one can credibly claim to know but it's safe to bet the answer is more than there is now.
In an expanding economy, with more people trying to come online, injecting more money does NOT cause inflation. All money is global. Most US bills- literal bills and coin- is NOT held by US citizens. It's Somewhere Else In The World. Pumping more of that into the world is not going to make your food prices rise.
What makes your food prices rise, aside from obvious crop shortages and natural disasters is mostly Wall Street speculators and banks that game the system to force a rise in food prices so that they can collect the winnings they made betting that food prices will rise.
The idea that the economy is a closed system and the more money the Fed injects into that system , the less each dollar is worth is a really low IQ understanding of the economy and fiat money and how they actually work. Stop taking Ron and Rand seriously- they're idiots and not just idiots, Texas-sized idiots which is to say really BIG idiots.
Not to mention that deflation, which is what you get if some precious metal is taken for currency, is poison to investment since people who borrow money will pay back in money that is worth more than they borrowed, making . That means borrowers would be required to pay less than they borrow, instead of interest + principle if anyone was going to be induced to borrow at all. That means banks would slowly run out of money. For that to work, a lot of things would have to change. Accounting comes to mind.
Money gaining in value is a prescription for disaster in a lot of ways.
I do not believe that the Fed increasing the money supply results in inflation and here's why. How do we know how much money OUGHT to be in the system at any given time? There are literally billions of people trying to join the economy and get paid wages that will permit them to buy modern conveniences and a higher standard of living. Without more money, they will not be able to do that. The price of a computer chip is related to not just demand , but also the real cost (indebtedness) AMD , say, has incurred in producing the chip. They can't sell them to impoverished Chinese in the countryside for six cents and stay in business. The impoverished people have to be raised up to meet the system. That money has to come from somewhere.
There used to (recently) be about 60 trillion dollars of money in the economy, floating around in the world , with about 1 trillion literal US dollars- paper and coinage. .
There are 7 billion people in the world. That means if everything for everyone was equal, we'd all get 8,500 bucks, but only 1/60th of that would be *real* dollars as you mean the term (the Fed calls this kind of literal money M1 ).
That's not a lot of money. The Fed adding money tot he world's economy is not going to spark inflation because inflation IS NOT an increase in the money supply, it's an increase in the cost of goods and services .
More people means more services and more opportunity and therefore the need for more money . This is not inflationary, it's "expansionary" and they are NOT the same thing.
Alice Newkirk masturbates with an entire tail of a great white whale! She's obsessed with that great white whale tail and she's going to have it no matter what the cost is to other humans ! She walks the deck of her ship, looking through her spy glass, driving her ship into dangerous waters , jeopardizing the safety of all around her just for a chance to GET THAT WHALE TAIL!!!
My god. She's sick. She's lost perspective on life, on what the value of life is, on everything of any value.... she just wants TAIL!
She should probably be forcibly institutionalized before she crashes the entire ship and kills every human on board!
Liberals HATE PETA. Every liberal I know HATES PETA.
You're talking about anarchists and a few Hollywood icons who don't know jack about PETA but will participate in a no fur campaign (because, hey, it's a chance to take off your clothes in front of a camera).
That's who supports PETA.
Every rational adult liberal I have ever discussed with with basically snorted and spit their name our of their mouth if the topic was ever broached.
This is like saying most conservatives are militia members. It's total bullshit.
I think this is wrong,. It's only defamation if it's false AND the author knew it as false at the time it was authored.
The truth is an absolute defense of course. Another defense is no reasonable reader would have taken what was said as a matter of fact - factual truth- and not rampant speculation or snide remark or political statement or matter of opinion not likely to be based in fact. If the target is a person in the public eye, you have to affirmatively say, in effect "X is the actual, real facts" and know that it's not.
A famous case involving the National Enquirer and Carol Burnett springs to mind. She had to prove that the paper knew the allegations (about her being drunk) were false. She was able to do that in that case and the paper lost.
Mostly you can have at it WRT to famous people or undefined grouping of people "all lawyers' or "that industry" no lawsuit is going to be won, although of course anyone can sue anyone anywhere at any time for any reason.
For instance, if PETA sued someone in New York State because they were arguing against PETA in a public discussion forum, then that person could sue PETA back under New York State's SLAPP Law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ) protects people from being sued by (and gives legal recourse against ) entities if the action that person is being sued for was participating in a public forum on a matter of public interest.
PETA appears to me to be pulling a Scientology here and trying to get the word out to *everyone* that it's "dangerous" to say anything negative against PETA.
On the internet, this is known to be the opposite of a good strategy and PETA now has two PR disasters on its hand, one considerably worse than the other. They could have talked their way out of the first one (the Humane Society puts animals down also, it's just a logistical fact about animals and the amount of money and space to take care of them).
But suing Susie Homebody because she said a bad thing about your big organization? That's just cyber bullying and everyone knows it. This is going to backfire on PETA big time and probably a lot of people are going to start posting statements online just to spite them, like:
"Ingrid Newkirk is well known to masturbate using lobster tails"
or
"PETA is listed as an organization likely to be associated with terrorism because it's radical members have been linked to bombing of animal labs in universities and one of their founders, Alice Newkirk has written that no movement for social change has ever succeeded without what she calls the militarism component, saying things like:
"Thinkers may prepare revolutions," she wrote of the ALF in 2004, "but bandits must carry them out."[95]
and
"Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?"
More from Wikipedia on the PETA - TERRORISM connection:
In 2004 The Observer described what it called a network of relationships between apparently unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic, writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds a number of activists and groupsâ"some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat. American writer Don Liddick writes that PETA gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front in 2001â"Newkirk said the donation was a mistake, and that the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat, but Liddick writes that it went to t
It's an intersection of concerns with facial recognition, tagging and Big Tech's seemingly callous indifference to our privacy , all of that hitting up against our evolutionarily bequeathed intuition that when we walk along in life, we have more than a modicum of privacy amongst strangers. Basically people fast forwarded in their imaginations to (creepy... or otherwise) people using Google Goggles to look at us on the street and download a ton of information about us by matching our face to social media pictures of us or our house to information about us or our license plate to stuff people have said about our driving.
Take a picture of something and start talking about it with everyone quickly becomes take of picture of something which identifies us and start gossiping with strangers about us in even ordinary people's minds.
FB is bad enough. Now we're going to be tagged and bagged as we walk down the street. Hot girl? Who is she? Where does she live? Whoa look as this... DUDE!!!
That kind of thing is fantastically invasive and creepy and it's exactly what will happen because all new technology becomes porn why? because we're monkeys whose chief and overwhelming concern was is and always will be reproducing our genes with the hottest thing we can land in order to maximize our genetic fitness. Even if you don't think that's the reason all new technology becomes porn, the fact is , all new technology becomes porn of some sort , if only gossip porn.
So yeah, that's why people hate Google Goggles.
Google should have, at all times and at all places loudly ferociously and very publicly defended the anonymity of their users come hell or high court subpena.
"With Street View, we drive by exactly once, so you can just move." (if you don't like your residence being online)
"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions,...They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."
"If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use Artificial Intelligence...we can predict where you are going to go,"
"Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the Internet?"
"One day we had a conversation where we figured we could just try to predict the stock market,....And then we decided it was illegal. So we stopped doing that."
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"
If they were uniquely noted for their commitment to privacy, then maybe people would have trusted them with their faces. As it is, it's too late unwind it all and people are rightly concerned.
Please. Go ahead. Get Congress to authorize you to deploy rootkits. While you're at it, better make sure Congress also holds you immune from any damages done to the user's computer by either you or a third party who exploits your rootkit on the user's machine. I really want you to do this. I really sincerely hope this legislation goes through.
Because that will be the end of you. That will bring to an end the era of Big Entertainment.as people take special pains and use soon-to-be-written FOSS software to ensure that no part, fragment, snippet or bit...nothing, NO-THING of what you produce ever has any contact whatsoever with any machine they own.
One way to kill your enemy is to give them everything they want. This works especially well when the enemy is the coke snorting sociopathic lawyers and executives in an industry who would corrupt every last vestige of civil society and even democracy and free speech itself in order that they can go on making money in just the way they've set themselves up to make money.
So please, go ahead.. make my day. (footnote 1)
Footnote 1-t
The phrase "Make my day" is copyrighted by Warners Brothers and is used here without permission despite the fact that Woofy Goofy was fully cognizant of the copyright and also the need to seek legal permission before using the phrase "Make my day" and further, it was Woofy Goofy 's intent to, with malice of forethought , defraud and and deprive Warners Brothers of its legal right to compensation for the usage of its copyrighted material and this defrauding was not intended by WoofyGoofy as a political act or protest but rather and only to secure financial gain for WoofyGoofy, regardless of the amount of such gain or whether such gain could reasonably be inferred to have materialized through any means, and for no other reason whatsoever.
Come on Bill. What you're seeing is something I call the Charlie Rose Effect whereby people get on a stage, literally have a spotlight shone on them, sit relaxed with their top shirt button undone, have the whole thing MC'ed and field Questions Asked By The Audience suddenly come off as wise.
This is a game society plays with itself, because there are millions of content mills who need content - at universities, conferences, on TV and the internet- and a millions of people who want that spotlight and because we have a need to believe.
Eric Schmidt is less intelligent and insightful than literally billions of people on almost every topic you can name; my grad student roommate is more interesting and insightful across a wide swath of worldy things than he has ever been on, like, rolling basis.
He is less interesting than virtually any random TED presenter, himself excepted. He is less intelligent than most grad students. He is radically underachieved along interestingness / insightfulness dimensions given the decades of unique access he's had to the world's coolest stuff, information and personalities.
His job description now as it has been for a long time, is merely to talk to interesting people doing interesting things and still one has to wring the Eric Schmidt sponge nearly dry to get even a single utterance that is arguably thought provoking.
Some schmucky guy with the World's Luckiest Resume on stage holding forth on The Future of The Future and an audience listening intently is an optical illusion of sorts. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you.
You do realize that there's a huge gulf between the fact that some chemicals are regulated and the inability to make a chip and that you've done exactly nothing to cross that chasm. Yet you still think it's probably true.
Can someone tell me? He didn't invent Google and while there he didn't invent squat at Google He was brought on ONLY because the VC behind Google insisted that Larry and Serge could not act as CEOs for Google when it was starting. Larry and Serge then went through a long list of candidates, rejecting them all, because they're, you know souless suits. Finally they took on Schmidt because time was running out and they had to take on someone. Before that, Schmidt had been a typical middle manager of no distinction.
While at Google Schmidt's main concern was to tell his longtime wife they were now in an open marriage and start dating hot girls with drug problems for whom he paid for drug rehab and jetting around to Burning Man and generally getting a second crack at being the cool kid everyone wanted to hang out with in high school. . When he wasn't thus engaged, he was saying things which Google had to back peddle on and which indicated that Schmidt was a shallow, coarse, unintelligent asshole.
So why when her talks does anyone care? He's a vacant careerist of no distinction and less character who through a stroke of enormous good luck fell very far upwards in life.
It's all publicly available information and anyone who knows the history of Google from just the popular press knows it's all true, never mind people who know the back story to all of the above who we can presume can't stand the site of the guy.
Please, Slashdot, no more Eric Schmidt said "blah" stories, OK?
Fat hatred and blaming people for being fat is so universal and so conscious that it's hard to take any methodolgy seriously that finds that people are "unconscious" of their hatred of obese people.
Want to get at the real socially redeeming value of this journal entry? Study the methodolgy, understand where it went wrong, and above all never, ever use it.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you knew here and /
Found her dead on the ground ?
-- Neil Young
it's a feature. he.
Biometric information is different..
Get it?
Grok these instead
Combinatorics, Stats and Probability
Markov Processes
Random Variables
Linear Algebra
Those are more like math and thinking and less like Empty Symbol Manipulation anyways
then whatever else is used to solve problems you're interested in along the way
And do not need to be replaced.
OK we're all done here.
It's not true about Bush and the war. The liberals thought Obama would end the war and close GITMO and stop drones etc. When he didn't , they turned on him. Liberals generally are very angry and disappointed with Obama from his war record to his environmental record.
Now people OTHER than hard right conservatives and OTHER than very left liberals think Obama is OK, did what he could with what he had and what reality handed him in terms of Congress and Senate make up and I am one fo those.
About being socialist, I am for a system which limits both government and individual power. All evil comes from gross power inequality and unaccountability . Evil is a form of bullying whereby the bully has seeks or obtains power over the bullied. That includes financial power, political unaccountabilty and opacity . I am for freedom FROM X as well as freedom TO X, transparency and maximum information.
I think incomes should be leveled by taxes far far more than they are. We don't need a world run for and by billionaires and the PR campaigns they pay for. I could give a fuck about your right to be a billionaire. All power corrupts everyone always. That's as close to a universal as you're going to get and we have to stop people from becoming over-powered and overpowering those around them. No, I don't care about your "freedom" in this regard, which is more properly termed "fweedom" and which is nothing the "freedom to " make it impossible for people to have "freedom from" you.
I think government should be far far far more transparent and we should use technology to achieve this whether they like it or not, no matter what they say or who says it or what specter of horrible consequences they invoke.
I think the greatest lie detection / truth discovering machine we've ever built or can think to build is the peer-reviewed application of the scientific method we call "science" and that a lot of taxes should go to it and to the creation of technology which promote the general welfare, especially the efficient the production of food (new, meat that's grown in labs is a good example) and the exploration of nano technology etc. which will make impossible things possible, medicine and alternative energy.
I think other things but that's a start. I don't consider myself a socialist, I consider myself a rationalist.
Thanks for asking.
You're confusing a literal democracy with Democracy. A democratic republic It's a democratic form of government. It's not majority rule or direct democracy, At any rate the distinction being made is the difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms.
A representative Republic is not a form of lawless despotism.
because one of the parties wants it? Fuck you. The purpose of the law is to serve the greater needs of society, not the parties involved in a lawsuit. A LOT of shit goes down in terms of in and out of court settlements and wrongdoing that has the effect of frustrating researchers trying to ferret out and understand important trends and practices in society because of this secrecy. This does not serve the greater needs of society, in fact, just the fucking opposite.
What's to stop them from lying like Holder apparently did. Just editing out tons of stuff. It's not like they're worried about going to jail.
I am not being cynical.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/28/eric-holder-under-investigation-by-house-judiciary-committee-for-possibly-lying-under-oath/
We have a serious problem with the integrity of the justice system. It's mainly because of worries about national security. Those worries go directly to a part of the minds of the individuals involved, the decision makers, and interact with inchoate, unconscious, individually-derived, unexamined, unspoken, irrational fears of death, chaos, disorder and loss of control.
What we're getting from this is a lot of law breaking and attempted law breaking on the part of the authorities who are basing decisions on the contents of their own personal unconscious .
Essentially everything, every breach of secrecy, every challenge to the ways and means they've decided upon, in some cases every utterance and especially anyone displaying an attitude of contempt for America is processed as some sort of potential disaster of absolute and unrecoverable proportions and justifies every kind of abuse .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesselyn_Radack#cite_note-Dark_Side.2C_p.97-22
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/29/imprisoned-cia-torture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-pens-letter-from-loretto/
9-11 made us lose perspective of a lot of things we need to keep perspective on in order to achieve real security and also to maintain our way of life, e.g. democracy.
One of those things is the fact that people may hate us for perfectly reasonable causes from their perspective because war involves the injection of unfairness by Bad People followed by an attempt to reduce, mitigate and unfortunately redistribute that unfairness. That's the morality of drones. As soon as the extremists in Waziristan decide someone's going to die, our job is to make that dying redistribute to them and unfortunately those close to them, but in any event it's not going to be their intended target. The morality of it is, we didn't decide anyone has to die in the first place- they did.
We have to consciously and collectively decide what we're wiling to put up in terms of terrorism in order to sustain our way of life . We aren't doing that.
The answer can't be "nothing ever gets through" because no one can promise that anyways and only the total corruption of our government lies down that road.
Maybe one day their will be a DIY doomsday technology. When that day comes, and I think it will, we will have to have worked out a way for us to keep ourselves free and keep ourselves safe. In order to have achieved that, we have to start talking publicly about tradeoffs between security and freedom, gotten the unconscious, hysterical motivations out of the collective closet, created a means to know what needs to be known and a means to deliberately not know what doesn't need to be known.
The government is hysterical. More precisely, the people in the government are so afraid of making a mistake , not having turned over the right rock, that they're breaking the law.
I have to add that the insane, vituperative politics which treats every potential national security error as a form of treason plays into this too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/pete-santilli-secret-service_n_3312564.html
No one wants to lose
" When they inflate the currency, they dont create new value - they just suck some of the value out of the old currency"
Wrong. When we inject more money into the world's economy, we make it possible for the billions of people who would like to participate in the economy to do so.
Increasing the money supply is not what inflation is; inflation is increasing prices for the same (or worse) good and service. In a world financial system in which literally billions of people want to have more money , enough to live a life other than subsistence farming, begging and scrounging through garbage dumps, there has to be a corresponding increase in the money supply so they can have some money.
How much money should be in circulation now? No one can credibly claim to know but it's safe to bet the answer is more than there is now.
In an expanding economy, with more people trying to come online, injecting more money does NOT cause inflation. All money is global. Most US bills- literal bills and coin- is NOT held by US citizens. It's Somewhere Else In The World. Pumping more of that into the world is not going to make your food prices rise.
What makes your food prices rise, aside from obvious crop shortages and natural disasters is mostly Wall Street speculators and banks that game the system to force a rise in food prices so that they can collect the winnings they made betting that food prices will rise.
The idea that the economy is a closed system and the more money the Fed injects into that system , the less each dollar is worth is a really low IQ understanding of the economy and fiat money and how they actually work. Stop taking Ron and Rand seriously- they're idiots and not just idiots, Texas-sized idiots which is to say really BIG idiots.
Not to mention that deflation, which is what you get if some precious metal is taken for currency, is poison to investment since people who borrow money will pay back in money that is worth more than they borrowed, making . That means borrowers would be required to pay less than they borrow, instead of interest + principle if anyone was going to be induced to borrow at all. That means banks would slowly run out of money. For that to work, a lot of things would have to change. Accounting comes to mind.
Money gaining in value is a prescription for disaster in a lot of ways.
Now I think you're having a bit of fun with all this...
I do not believe that the Fed increasing the money supply results in inflation and here's why. How do we know how much money OUGHT to be in the system at any given time? There are literally billions of people trying to join the economy and get paid wages that will permit them to buy modern conveniences and a higher standard of living. Without more money, they will not be able to do that. The price of a computer chip is related to not just demand , but also the real cost (indebtedness) AMD , say, has incurred in producing the chip. They can't sell them to impoverished Chinese in the countryside for six cents and stay in business. The impoverished people have to be raised up to meet the system. That money has to come from somewhere.
There used to (recently) be about 60 trillion dollars of money in the economy, floating around in the world , with about 1 trillion literal US dollars- paper and coinage. .
http://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world.htm
There are 7 billion people in the world. That means if everything for everyone was equal, we'd all get 8,500 bucks, but only 1/60th of that would be *real* dollars as you mean the term (the Fed calls this kind of literal money M1 ).
That's not a lot of money. The Fed adding money tot he world's economy is not going to spark inflation because inflation IS NOT an increase in the money supply, it's an increase in the cost of goods and services .
More people means more services and more opportunity and therefore the need for more money . This is not inflationary, it's "expansionary" and they are NOT the same thing.
HTH.
Alice Newkirk masturbates with an entire tail of a great white whale! She's obsessed with that great white whale tail and she's going to have it no matter what the cost is to other humans ! She walks the deck of her ship, looking through her spy glass, driving her ship into dangerous waters , jeopardizing the safety of all around her just for a chance to GET THAT WHALE TAIL!!!
My god. She's sick. She's lost perspective on life, on what the value of life is, on everything of any value.... she just wants TAIL!
She should probably be forcibly institutionalized before she crashes the entire ship and kills every human on board!
Film at 11 !
I wish I had mod points. Interesting perspective.
Liberals HATE PETA. Every liberal I know HATES PETA.
You're talking about anarchists and a few Hollywood icons who don't know jack about PETA but will participate in a no fur campaign (because, hey, it's a chance to take off your clothes in front of a camera).
That's who supports PETA.
Every rational adult liberal I have ever discussed with with basically snorted and spit their name our of their mouth if the topic was ever broached.
This is like saying most conservatives are militia members. It's total bullshit.
I feel the need to investigate this issue further for the sake of the public interest. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150743-mexican-terrorists-wage-war-on-nanotech-but-its-peta-we-should-be-worried-about Holy Cow!
heh. heh.
I think this is wrong,. It's only defamation if it's false AND the author knew it as false at the time it was authored.
The truth is an absolute defense of course. Another defense is no reasonable reader would have taken what was said as a matter of fact - factual truth- and not rampant speculation or snide remark or political statement or matter of opinion not likely to be based in fact. If the target is a person in the public eye, you have to affirmatively say, in effect "X is the actual, real facts" and know that it's not.
A famous case involving the National Enquirer and Carol Burnett springs to mind. She had to prove that the paper knew the allegations (about her being drunk) were false. She was able to do that in that case and the paper lost.
Mostly you can have at it WRT to famous people or undefined grouping of people "all lawyers' or "that industry" no lawsuit is going to be won, although of course anyone can sue anyone anywhere at any time for any reason.
For instance, if PETA sued someone in New York State because they were arguing against PETA in a public discussion forum, then that person could sue PETA back under New York State's SLAPP Law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ) protects people from being sued by (and gives legal recourse against ) entities if the action that person is being sued for was participating in a public forum on a matter of public interest.
PETA appears to me to be pulling a Scientology here and trying to get the word out to *everyone* that it's "dangerous" to say anything negative against PETA .
On the internet, this is known to be the opposite of a good strategy and PETA now has two PR disasters on its hand, one considerably worse than the other. They could have talked their way out of the first one (the Humane Society puts animals down also, it's just a logistical fact about animals and the amount of money and space to take care of them) .
But suing Susie Homebody because she said a bad thing about your big organization? That's just cyber bullying and everyone knows it. This is going to backfire on PETA big time and probably a lot of people are going to start posting statements online just to spite them, like :
"Ingrid Newkirk is well known to masturbate using lobster tails"
or
"PETA is listed as an organization likely to be associated with terrorism because it's radical members have been linked to bombing of animal labs in universities and one of their founders, Alice Newkirk has written that no movement for social change has ever succeeded without what she calls the militarism component, saying things like:
"Thinkers may prepare revolutions," she wrote of the ALF in 2004, "but bandits must carry them out."[95]
and
"Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation ... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?"
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals
More from Wikipedia on the PETA - TERRORISM connection:
In 2004 The Observer described what it called a network of relationships between apparently unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic, writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds a number of activists and groupsâ"some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat. American writer Don Liddick writes that PETA gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front in 2001â"Newkirk said the donation was a mistake, and that the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat, but Liddick writes that it went to t
It's an intersection of concerns with facial recognition, tagging and Big Tech's seemingly callous indifference to our privacy , all of that hitting up against our evolutionarily bequeathed intuition that when we walk along in life, we have more than a modicum of privacy amongst strangers. Basically people fast forwarded in their imaginations to (creepy... or otherwise) people using Google Goggles to look at us on the street and download a ton of information about us by matching our face to social media pictures of us or our house to information about us or our license plate to stuff people have said about our driving.
Take a picture of something and start talking about it with everyone quickly becomes take of picture of something which identifies us and start gossiping with strangers about us in even ordinary people's minds.
FB is bad enough. Now we're going to be tagged and bagged as we walk down the street. Hot girl? Who is she? Where does she live? Whoa look as this... DUDE!!!
That kind of thing is fantastically invasive and creepy and it's exactly what will happen because all new technology becomes porn why? because we're monkeys whose chief and overwhelming concern was is and always will be reproducing our genes with the hottest thing we can land in order to maximize our genetic fitness. Even if you don't think that's the reason all new technology becomes porn, the fact is , all new technology becomes porn of some sort , if only gossip porn.
So yeah, that's why people hate Google Goggles.
Google should have, at all times and at all places loudly ferociously and very publicly defended the anonymity of their users come hell or high court subpena.
Instead, they got Eric Schmidt :
http://www.pcworld.com/article/217313/googles_eric_schmidt_ex_ceos_most_memorable_quotes.html
"With Street View, we drive by exactly once, so you can just move." (if you don't like your residence being online)
"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, ...They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."
"If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use Artificial Intelligence...we can predict where you are going to go,"
"Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the Internet?"
"One day we had a conversation where we figured we could just try to predict the stock market,....And then we decided it was illegal. So we stopped doing that."
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"
If they were uniquely noted for their commitment to privacy, then maybe people would have trusted them with their faces. As it is, it's too late unwind it all and people are rightly concerned.
Please. Go ahead. Get Congress to authorize you to deploy rootkits. While you're at it, better make sure Congress also holds you immune from any damages done to the user's computer by either you or a third party who exploits your rootkit on the user's machine. I really want you to do this. I really sincerely hope this legislation goes through.
Because that will be the end of you. That will bring to an end the era of Big Entertainment .as people take special pains and use soon-to-be-written FOSS software to ensure that no part, fragment, snippet or bit ...nothing, NO-THING of what you produce ever has any contact whatsoever with any machine they own.
One way to kill your enemy is to give them everything they want. This works especially well when the enemy is the coke snorting sociopathic lawyers and executives in an industry who would corrupt every last vestige of civil society and even democracy and free speech itself in order that they can go on making money in just the way they've set themselves up to make money.
So please, go ahead .. make my day. (footnote 1)
Footnote 1-t
The phrase "Make my day" is copyrighted by Warners Brothers and is used here without permission despite the fact that Woofy Goofy was fully cognizant of the copyright and also the need to seek legal permission before using the phrase "Make my day" and further, it was Woofy Goofy 's intent to, with malice of forethought , defraud and and deprive Warners Brothers of its legal right to compensation for the usage of its copyrighted material and this defrauding was not intended by WoofyGoofy as a political act or protest but rather and only to secure financial gain for WoofyGoofy, regardless of the amount of such gain or whether such gain could reasonably be inferred to have materialized through any means, and for no other reason whatsoever.
Come on Bill. What you're seeing is something I call the Charlie Rose Effect whereby people get on a stage, literally have a spotlight shone on them, sit relaxed with their top shirt button undone, have the whole thing MC'ed and field Questions Asked By The Audience suddenly come off as wise.
This is a game society plays with itself, because there are millions of content mills who need content - at universities, conferences, on TV and the internet- and a millions of people who want that spotlight and because we have a need to believe.
Eric Schmidt is less intelligent and insightful than literally billions of people on almost every topic you can name; my grad student roommate is more interesting and insightful across a wide swath of worldy things than he has ever been on, like, rolling basis.
He is less interesting than virtually any random TED presenter, himself excepted. He is less intelligent than most grad students. He is radically underachieved along interestingness / insightfulness dimensions given the decades of unique access he's had to the world's coolest stuff, information and personalities.
His job description now as it has been for a long time, is merely to talk to interesting people doing interesting things and still one has to wring the Eric Schmidt sponge nearly dry to get even a single utterance that is arguably thought provoking.
Some schmucky guy with the World's Luckiest Resume on stage holding forth on The Future of The Future and an audience listening intently is an optical illusion of sorts. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you.
You do realize that there's a huge gulf between the fact that some chemicals are regulated and the inability to make a chip and that you've done exactly nothing to cross that chasm. Yet you still think it's probably true.
Just observing a bug in your thinking.
Can someone tell me? He didn't invent Google and while there he didn't invent squat at Google He was brought on ONLY because the VC behind Google insisted that Larry and Serge could not act as CEOs for Google when it was starting. Larry and Serge then went through a long list of candidates, rejecting them all, because they're, you know souless suits. Finally they took on Schmidt because time was running out and they had to take on someone. Before that, Schmidt had been a typical middle manager of no distinction.
While at Google Schmidt's main concern was to tell his longtime wife they were now in an open marriage and start dating hot girls with drug problems for whom he paid for drug rehab and jetting around to Burning Man and generally getting a second crack at being the cool kid everyone wanted to hang out with in high school. . When he wasn't thus engaged, he was saying things which Google had to back peddle on and which indicated that Schmidt was a shallow, coarse, unintelligent asshole.
So why when her talks does anyone care? He's a vacant careerist of no distinction and less character who through a stroke of enormous good luck fell very far upwards in life.
It's all publicly available information and anyone who knows the history of Google from just the popular press knows it's all true, never mind people who know the back story to all of the above who we can presume can't stand the site of the guy.
Please, Slashdot, no more Eric Schmidt said "blah" stories, OK?
Fat hatred and blaming people for being fat is so universal and so conscious that it's hard to take any methodolgy seriously that finds that people are "unconscious" of their hatred of obese people.
Want to get at the real socially redeeming value of this journal entry? Study the methodolgy, understand where it went wrong, and above all never, ever use it.