That already happened in 2014 . They did something for someone and were gagged into not saying anything about it because they got an NSL. Their warrant canary died.
An NSL is compulsory. Their government is forcing them to comply. What Apples "wants" doesn't factor in much.
The limits of an NSL is that it can only be for non-content information. Call history, browsing history, but not the content of a call. And the gag order part must be signed by the FBI director who certified that it, among other things, doesn't interfere with a counter-terrorism investigation. Which it certainly would if these nutjobs asked Mr. McJihadPants how best to go pew pew and he heard the FBI was trying to get their phone history. He'd be SO GONE.
THIS order from the FBI is being made in the public space though. And it makes me wonder why. Hey, could be they just want the full phone call transcription. (But the NSA already does all that contrary to what their leaders claim)
Of course, but it's hard to draw the line somewhere.
Can I not give a friend a ride? Can I have him pay for gas? Can I have him pay me for my time? Does it have to be my friend? (good luck proving that in court) What if it's a friend of a friend? What if there's a computer involved to keep track of friends and rates and locations? What if there's a company involved that sells software that does something to organize that?
Now, of course Uber is a taxi company that just has a different model. They are. But another way of looking at it is that they sell software services to people who are self-employed. The question of where do you draw the line is a hard one. There are lots of ways to do it and they're not all created equal. Restrict the amount of money exchanged as less then $1000/year? Restrict the number of rides you can give out? Restrict any sort of computer organizational tool? Oh god, I hope not. So I'm really worried that they're going to refine that line in such a way that I can no longer legally give my friend a ride, or pay a buddy with a truck to haul some shit for me.
Remember that it's not their job to get in the way of economic paradigm shifts. Switching to independent contractors paying a cut to an organizational tool for piecemeal work looks like a horrible dystopia to me. (As I sit here in a kooshy office salary gig waiting for the next project). But trying to hold back innovation makes you a luddite and you really can't stop it. Not for long. Not without looking absolutely foolish and getting undercut by your innovative neighbour.
I presume that some congressman pushed the FBI to make this request out in the open just for the purpose of fighting it in court. All in all it's a good thing. Defending civil rights and all that.
But if the FBI ACTUALLY wanted this information they would have simply given Apple a gag order along with it. Or asked the NSA to do that for them. It's even their purpose, fighting terrorism, right? This falls SQUARELY under the domain of shit they've strong-armed and gagged companys into helping them with. The fact that we're even hearing about it has to be some sort of process manipulation.
Oh it parses, I too thought for a moment that "Infection" was computer oriented and the title makers were being cutesy. (In rather bad taste if you ask me). Because there was NO WAY that they'd threaten infection with HIV.
But no. It's ACTUALLY that horrible. That's a LITERAL headline. Holy shit, wtf, $[expletive-of-choice-here].
I knew Rikers had a bad reputation, but that just sound brutal.
Seriously, couldn't they opt for hard labor or some alternative?
This could be a really slippery slope. I can just imagine a power mad warden giving some poor bastard the Malbolge spec for light reading while in solitary.
Those gul-darn liberals with their rassimfrassim Gunpowder Plot of 1605 by Catholics, the 1773 Boston Tea-Party vandalism by the Sons of Liberty, and the formation of the KKK in 1865.
Please stop trying to shove terrorism into the right-left clusterfuck.
It's like your entire world-view is skewed by your own personal political fantasyland. Do you know what we call people whose views are out of touch with reality? "Extremists".
christians don't go nuts because their book says "love your enemy"
Unless you take a look at the first half. In which case you get fun sections of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus. Or you can drink the cool aid and believe that the latter half annuls the first half and god is wishywashy when it comes to what's moral. But hey, even Matthew gets in on the action: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
No one can ever say this sort of shit because it's not true. Seriously, have you ever read the bible?
And as soon as we can make single-walled carbon nanotubes in sufficient length to make a weave that can reach to GEO, then the price of getting to space becomes cheap.
The "only way" is currently not viable as the record SWCNT is.... huh. About 1/2 a meter in 2013... Wow, the last I looked they were struggling for centimetres. That's really encouraging.
So... It's coming. But in the meantime, it's rockets all the way up.
I had this thought too. "WTF does Turkey have that can shoot down a Russian plane?" And the answer is that the target wasn't their air superiority Su-35 (which looks awesome btw), it was a Su-24 a long-range interdiction fighter made to go behind enemy lines and blow up supply trucks. It was shot down by an F-16* which is made for air superiority. Even if hostilities were made apparent and the two forces actually struggled, I'd still put money on the tool made for the job. The Su-24 isn't quite as air-insuperior as an A-2 warthog, but it's along those lines.
But I don't even know if there was a struggle. The Russians may have just been waving their dick about believing that no one in their right mind would poke the bear. They might have simply sat their while they got shot down.
*Which is an old bird right? But this isn't two first-world nations going at it. And while we have 195 F-22s, there are more like 4500 F-16s in the world. And there are about to be an ungodly number of cheaper drones. The cutting edge weapons we have will never really be used. The things which see action will be the workhorses and the cheaper-end products of yesteryear.
The U.S. also once had the balls to support Saddam Hussein to defeat a nasty threat.
The U.S. also once had the balls to support Osama Bin Laden to defeat a nasty threat.
Perhaps you're suggesting the USA ally with a nefarious group to bring down the larger threat. Let me remind you that ISIS is in no way a credible threat to national security. They have zero chance of ending us. We will endure. They will not. Indeed, their time on this world seems quite short. As a rogue "nation" they, at most, can conduct a terrorist campaign. And the biggest risk of said campaign, is giving in to the terror.
Those who don't learn a little history are doomed to repeat it.
(Which honestly applies more to our backing of Syrian rebels if anything. Seriously, why do we even have a horse in the race in the first place?)
Some critics believe that rather than truly struggling with a problem, developers can now just ask Stack Overflow users to solve it for them.
Get a load of these guys. As if "struggling" should be applauded and praised. I understand that there's a certain skillset with generic problem solving. The first step is to consult the grand answer of questions, the google, and see if this is common knowledge. IF NOT, the second step should be to ask for specialized knowledge, which is where stack overflow (and more broadly, stack exchange) excels. Another great resource for that second step would be your co-workers, peers, or teacher. Because this is how you learn. After that, sure, it's a hard problem you actually need to develop something novel or drill down to the root problem.
Hey, there is certainly variance when it comes to how tenacious people are. And it'd be great if people followed up the solution and figured out that "why" portion. But that doesn't mean we should snub those asking questions. You can lead a horse to water, etc.
Do we REALLY want a billion people banging their head on a brick wall just trying to find out why their string needs to be null terminated? Can't we just tell them?
(Also, it's a communally generated users-manual for WAY too many projects out there. MSDN sucks)
If nothing else, this post was awesome for directing me to "Home, home on Lagrange"
Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus Where the three-body problem is solved, Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K, And the cold virus never evolved. (chorus)
We eat algae pie, our vacuum is high, Our ball bearings are perfectly round. Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed, And a kilogram weighs half a pound. (chorus)
If we run out of space for our burgeoning race No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart, If we just find a big enough wrench. (chorus)
I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space, And living up here is a bore. Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye 'Cause I'm moving next week to L4! (chorus)
CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange, Where the space debris always collects, We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams: Solar power and zero-gee sex.
It's like the entire 70's were just ahead of their time.
Wow dude, that reads like some serious hard-ball propaganda. You really don't like Iran do you?
Jesus, where to start. The economic sanctions have hurt them, but the economy isn't in shambles. They still have A LOT of oil. And as long as someone buys it, the sanctions don't do much to that. I mean, China is buying the oil, a fungible resource. It's #2 in OPEC. Honestly, US shale oil from fraking is probably hurting them more than the sanctions.
You'll see it is already checkmate on Iran.
Wow, that's some serious fluff you've got going on there. Checkmate.
the rest of the middle east which mostly hates them will get nukes about five minutes later
Where the hell does this come from? Is the USA going to give nukes to the Saudis? To Jordan? To Iraq!? oh hell no.
And we've already (very foolishly) given at least a couple nukes to Israel.
The Iranians have overdosed on their "great satan" propaganda.
You realize that the "great-satan" guy Ahmadinnerplate doesn't have any power right? He's a spokesperson for the nation. And he got voted out in 2013 and replaced by a more moderate guy.
Imagine a different world. A world where Iran wasn't going out of its way to be a dick head.
That'd probably involve a world where the CIA and Britian and didn't overthrow their government and install a puppet-dictator in a blatant oil-grab. Blowback is a bitch isn't it?
They could be an industrial power in the middle east. The Germany or Japan of the region.
Of the region? "The region" is EARTH, and our neighbors are CHINA, who makes everything. Welcome to globalization. It's been going on for a while.
And what did they get in return for [trying to be a nuclear power]?
Power. The threat of power. The compromise from the the western powers at the negotiating table when it comes to Iranian power. And I believe they're working on nuclear sovereignty like their neighbors Pakistan and India.
why do it? Besides fetal lead poisoning leading to chemically induced retardation
Wow dude, wtf?
history... colonialism... so what?
It wasn't actually colonialism. Iran was established and civilized during the colonial period. The major historical event that someone else has obviously told you about before was in the 50 s and after 30 years they took back their country. It's that revolution is the reason that the USA is being dicks to Iran. Both sides are holding grudges for pretty bad shit in the past.
What relevance does that have on 2015?
Yeah, I'd say more recent events like the USA unilaterally invading and occupying their neighbor would be a more relevant issue affecting the political landscape. 300,000 dead civvies is not something you just overlook.
The Iranians should be trying to make friends with the US.
Says the US nationalist. It would end sanctions though, that's a plus. I'm REALLY not too sure about that whole military security thing. Imagine if Ukraine had nukes.
Really, there's a legitimate argument here that Iran's nuclear program hasn't been a good idea in the long run, even when you consider the political power that comes with being nuclear armed. But you're just so over the top and blinded to the reality of the situation that I had to say something. Ease up on the kool-aid or you might get fooled into thinking the next pointless war is going to pay itself off in 3 months.
Your counter-claim is that all anarchys are capitalisms
Read it again. My claim is that capitalism is a lot like anarchy. There are some important differences. If they're so similar that you didn't notice, well, that's kinda my point.
But really, my main thrust is that in a capitalistic society you have to simply hope that the players are playing fair, and that there are plenty of ways for powerful people screw over the masses for profit.
The 'invisible hand' is term used as a way of saying that you hope allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves will actually result in benefits to society and you're wishing on a prayer that they don't have backroom deals, aren't colluding, , regulatory capture, or that one doesn't have a stranglehold on the other bending them over barrel.
There we go.
Anarchy is a system in which trade, industry, the means of production, as well as security, politics, and basic rights are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector?
Those aren't minimum wage jobs.
So what? We're talking about advocating education, and specifically about universal vocational education, ie the state paying for college, tech school, trade school, or such.
Yes, those ARE NOT minimum wage jobs. They are jobs that have more demand, and therefore have higher wages. We need more of these people. We should make more of these people. With education.
Is your goal to make as many people scrounge out a living on minimum wage as possible?
Also, historically, mechanization, paradigm shifts, and other such major business process changes aren't there to shift labor up the pipe.
The hell? Remember when 80% of the workforce used to be farmers? Then they moved more towards factories. Do you not see that shift from the primary to secondary industry? There will always be some people in the primary industries (I don't think complete automation is really viable), but the bulk of the demand for workers has indeed shifted up the pipe. That might not have been the intended goal of industrialization, but it's a consequence of it. Regardless, you can't possibly argue that there HAS been a shift from the primary sector, to the secondary, to the tertiary. Knowledge workers is where the jobs are at. Don't be dense.
I think your "thousands of hours" have given you a bit of an ego. Because, no, it took you THREE promptings to refute my points, and then you wave away the points with "That's an anecdote" and "[universal education doesn't make minimum wage jobs]". Yeah, you're hearing 2+2=5, but that's not what I'm saying. You're going to win a lot of arguments that way, but lose all your debates.
And... really? You think getting an engineering degree is going to "fail" since other people want those engineering jobs? HA! Well this might just be an anecdote, but it worked pretty well for me. And every other engineer I know.
There really isn't an infinite demand market for scientists and engineers. Where would we get infinite money?
With time. Imagine you had an oil well which never ran dry. Or a farm with an infinitely sized plot. You could pump up as much oil or grow as much corn as you wanted, but you'd flood the market and see diminishing returns. Science and engineering has an unlimited amount of..... "advancement" that they can go work on. That's not the same as an infinite demand. Demand for science comes and goes, and it's mostly a matter of businesses or armies wanting to one-up their neighbor. But there's an infinite amount of work. And I'm not so sure there are diminishing returns.
as opposed to having businesses who understand their own needs develop the work force, hiring entrants and managing their education far more efficiently.
Wow, corporate control over not only the wages of all their workers, but also the primary force of upward social mobility.... yeah, that paints a pleasant picture of the future.
Siiiiiigh, the saddest part about all this is that I agree with your main idea. A guaranteed income, or a citizen's dividend, sounds like a good idea. But GOD DAMN are you hard to talk to about it. Really, your views on everything else are kinda turning me off of the idea.
How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.
Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).
That's not an emotional appeal or just an ancedote that showcases the need to pick the right degree that has the ability to pay off college debt. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to continue with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that post.
I absolutely agree that's not what the supreme court ruled. And that this interpretation is a post-decision spin of the losing side. The talking point that PopeRatzo was using was stating that the far right does not hold this view. They believe it and want it to be true. As shown by their leadership. Neither you, I, or PopeRatzo believe that corporations are people, but I present you with the republican presidential candidate himself saying that corporations are people.... and you think this is some sort of democratic party lie? We most certainly don't want corporations to be treated like people. That's a horrible thing. Even PopeRatzo is claiming that only crazy right-wingers believe that.
Romney is responding to a heckler who called for taxes to be raised, not on people, but on corporations. Mitt's response is "corporations are people my friend", "Of course they are".
And sure, he goes on to try and point out that the money that goes to corporation goes into people's pockets and corporations are made of people, but none of that matters. Because the entire argument here is whether or not corporations can be treated as people. Sure, they're made of people, usually, but are they treated like people? Do they have right like people? And Romney in on the record buying into the belief that the supreme court ruled that corporations are people. Because he wants that to be true.
This is an emotional appeal most people have fallen for.
No it isn't. Did you see the part where I countered that I paid off my own student debt in 3 years as opposed to your hypothetical 30 year mortgage?
How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.
Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).
That's not an emotional appeal. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to open up with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that.
Let's see....
With college education,
I also called out tech and trade schools, but I don't think the distinction is important here.
and they know what direction their business is moving in;
Anyone who tells you a business can't predict its need for technical people in 5 years and would be completely ineffective at planning for their workforce effectively has no idea what he's talking about.
Pft. You crazy? Are you selectively looking at giant corporations that make widgets that have a 30 year shelf-life? There are startups that genesis, rise, fall, and get resurrected in the span of 5 years. No, "the business" can't predict it's needs and available revenue 5 years into the future. Knowing what their needs and revenue RIGHT NOW is difficult for most of them. The bigger the company is, the more momentum they probably have, but also the more moving parts. The smaller, the more volatile they're going to be. And it's not like the little guys have an entire division to do market analysis.
they can manage their human resources effectively by building skills in their employees.
That'd be lovely, but all too often we see them preferring to simply hire contractors who already have the skills. But hey, it DOES happen. I know a small firm that hired a smart english major and someone working towards their CS degree, and had the senior engineer train them up for years. Now, the english-major-now-experienced-programmer jumped ship for better pay and the college student can only put in 20hr/week due to classes, but it's a good idea in principle.
Yeah, I dunno dude. I'm not feeling like the rest of that rant is going to be worth the effort.
Yeah, $60K for a registered nurse doesn't sound like much with a high cost of living area like DC. That sucks.
Still, with the right degree, it's not an endless amount of debt. I had mine paid off in 3 years. I hear it's more expensive now though. Advocate In-State yo. Really any welfare reform is going to have to address the shift from primary->secondary->Tertiary economies. There's an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers. You should advocate education. In all it's forms.
it will set precedent by giving valid reason to occasionally manipulate the system by handing out more welfare money, which is exactly what I want to never do
Yeah, I dunno dude, automation keeps taking away more jobs. When they come for the paper pushers, I'm not sure I'm going to say anything. If your stated goal is to cut welfare money, then I don't think you're going to get a lot of believers. It's like how Nixon was caught bringing in the system of HMOs because he wanted it to reduce care and funnel money in the right direction.
My simulations indicate
it is extremely nuanced in theory, and only simple in practice when you've ingested a ton of theory and come up with a rough diagram that doesn't violate that theory
Oh get off it dude. Any economic plan like this is tied to the hip of sociology. And sociology is the softest of sciences and everyone is just guessing. It might be better informed guesses than the average shmuck, and avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls, but I have little faith that any social plan will work as intended. And if you don't think economics have anything to do with human culture and social trends, then I have zero faith in any economic plan you have. Like you said, it's complex.
Still, it's probably a good plan. Might be better than the current welfare system we have. I doubt it will be any less complex, or at least won't become as complex in time. The part where everyone has it, and there's no issue with getting on or getting off of it is a good idea. It solves the problem with the one-rung-up people having it the hardest. And the stigma of taking a handout. Although some would argue there should be a stigma as an encouragement to get off the dole. The part where the social security admin has to directly process contracts between citizens and slum lords is probably a no-go.
And Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate who the republican party voted for over Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and beat out Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Richard Perry, and that Cain guy. He was the figure head and leading member of the republican party. It's not just a talking point of the left. It's something the republican leadership wanted to be true. If that rubs you the wrong way, you really ought to take another look at your political party.
Because of course corporations aren't people. That's crazy talk that will make you unelectable.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems clear that traveling between stars may be prohibitively difficult even for "advanced" civilizations. To me that alone would explain it.
Sure, it's looking mighty hard to TRAVEL between stars, but if you place a satellite at the right spot you can communicate between stars using a 100W radio.
That already happened in 2014 . They did something for someone and were gagged into not saying anything about it because they got an NSL. Their warrant canary died.
An NSL is compulsory. Their government is forcing them to comply. What Apples "wants" doesn't factor in much.
The limits of an NSL is that it can only be for non-content information. Call history, browsing history, but not the content of a call. And the gag order part must be signed by the FBI director who certified that it, among other things, doesn't interfere with a counter-terrorism investigation. Which it certainly would if these nutjobs asked Mr. McJihadPants how best to go pew pew and he heard the FBI was trying to get their phone history. He'd be SO GONE.
THIS order from the FBI is being made in the public space though. And it makes me wonder why. Hey, could be they just want the full phone call transcription. (But the NSA already does all that contrary to what their leaders claim)
Of course, but it's hard to draw the line somewhere.
Can I not give a friend a ride? Can I have him pay for gas? Can I have him pay me for my time? Does it have to be my friend? (good luck proving that in court) What if it's a friend of a friend? What if there's a computer involved to keep track of friends and rates and locations? What if there's a company involved that sells software that does something to organize that?
Now, of course Uber is a taxi company that just has a different model. They are. But another way of looking at it is that they sell software services to people who are self-employed. The question of where do you draw the line is a hard one. There are lots of ways to do it and they're not all created equal. Restrict the amount of money exchanged as less then $1000/year? Restrict the number of rides you can give out? Restrict any sort of computer organizational tool? Oh god, I hope not. So I'm really worried that they're going to refine that line in such a way that I can no longer legally give my friend a ride, or pay a buddy with a truck to haul some shit for me.
Remember that it's not their job to get in the way of economic paradigm shifts. Switching to independent contractors paying a cut to an organizational tool for piecemeal work looks like a horrible dystopia to me. (As I sit here in a kooshy office salary gig waiting for the next project). But trying to hold back innovation makes you a luddite and you really can't stop it. Not for long. Not without looking absolutely foolish and getting undercut by your innovative neighbour.
I presume that some congressman pushed the FBI to make this request out in the open just for the purpose of fighting it in court. All in all it's a good thing. Defending civil rights and all that.
But if the FBI ACTUALLY wanted this information they would have simply given Apple a gag order along with it. Or asked the NSA to do that for them. It's even their purpose, fighting terrorism, right? This falls SQUARELY under the domain of shit they've strong-armed and gagged companys into helping them with. The fact that we're even hearing about it has to be some sort of process manipulation.
Oh it parses, I too thought for a moment that "Infection" was computer oriented and the title makers were being cutesy. (In rather bad taste if you ask me). Because there was NO WAY that they'd threaten infection with HIV.
But no. It's ACTUALLY that horrible. That's a LITERAL headline. Holy shit, wtf, $[expletive-of-choice-here].
I knew Rikers had a bad reputation, but that just sound brutal.
Seriously, couldn't they opt for hard labor or some alternative?
This could be a really slippery slope. I can just imagine a power mad warden giving some poor bastard the Malbolge spec for light reading while in solitary.
Those gul-darn liberals with their rassimfrassim Gunpowder Plot of 1605 by Catholics, the 1773 Boston Tea-Party vandalism by the Sons of Liberty, and the formation of the KKK in 1865.
Please stop trying to shove terrorism into the right-left clusterfuck.
It's like your entire world-view is skewed by your own personal political fantasyland. Do you know what we call people whose views are out of touch with reality? "Extremists".
christians don't go nuts because their book says "love your enemy"
Unless you take a look at the first half. In which case you get fun sections of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus. Or you can drink the cool aid and believe that the latter half annuls the first half and god is wishywashy when it comes to what's moral. But hey, even Matthew gets in on the action: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
No one can ever say this sort of shit because it's not true. Seriously, have you ever read the bible?
And as soon as we can make single-walled carbon nanotubes in sufficient length to make a weave that can reach to GEO, then the price of getting to space becomes cheap.
The "only way" is currently not viable as the record SWCNT is.... huh. About 1/2 a meter in 2013... Wow, the last I looked they were struggling for centimetres. That's really encouraging.
So... It's coming. But in the meantime, it's rockets all the way up.
I had this thought too. "WTF does Turkey have that can shoot down a Russian plane?" And the answer is that the target wasn't their air superiority Su-35 (which looks awesome btw), it was a Su-24 a long-range interdiction fighter made to go behind enemy lines and blow up supply trucks. It was shot down by an F-16* which is made for air superiority. Even if hostilities were made apparent and the two forces actually struggled, I'd still put money on the tool made for the job. The Su-24 isn't quite as air-insuperior as an A-2 warthog, but it's along those lines.
But I don't even know if there was a struggle. The Russians may have just been waving their dick about believing that no one in their right mind would poke the bear. They might have simply sat their while they got shot down.
*Which is an old bird right? But this isn't two first-world nations going at it. And while we have 195 F-22s, there are more like 4500 F-16s in the world. And there are about to be an ungodly number of cheaper drones. The cutting edge weapons we have will never really be used. The things which see action will be the workhorses and the cheaper-end products of yesteryear.
The U.S. once had the balls to support JOSEPH STALIN to defeat a nasty threat.
Yep, that's true. Oh, and while we're on the history lesson:
The U.S. also once had the balls to support Saddam Hussein to defeat a nasty threat.
The U.S. also once had the balls to support Osama Bin Laden to defeat a nasty threat.
Perhaps you're suggesting the USA ally with a nefarious group to bring down the larger threat. Let me remind you that ISIS is in no way a credible threat to national security. They have zero chance of ending us. We will endure. They will not. Indeed, their time on this world seems quite short. As a rogue "nation" they, at most, can conduct a terrorist campaign. And the biggest risk of said campaign, is giving in to the terror.
Those who don't learn a little history are doomed to repeat it.
(Which honestly applies more to our backing of Syrian rebels if anything. Seriously, why do we even have a horse in the race in the first place?)
Some critics believe that rather than truly struggling with a problem, developers can now just ask Stack Overflow users to solve it for them.
Get a load of these guys. As if "struggling" should be applauded and praised. I understand that there's a certain skillset with generic problem solving. The first step is to consult the grand answer of questions, the google, and see if this is common knowledge. IF NOT, the second step should be to ask for specialized knowledge, which is where stack overflow (and more broadly, stack exchange) excels. Another great resource for that second step would be your co-workers, peers, or teacher. Because this is how you learn. After that, sure, it's a hard problem you actually need to develop something novel or drill down to the root problem.
Hey, there is certainly variance when it comes to how tenacious people are. And it'd be great if people followed up the solution and figured out that "why" portion. But that doesn't mean we should snub those asking questions. You can lead a horse to water, etc.
Do we REALLY want a billion people banging their head on a brick wall just trying to find out why their string needs to be null terminated? Can't we just tell them?
(Also, it's a communally generated users-manual for WAY too many projects out there. MSDN sucks)
If their bat-shit crazy fascism hadn't driven away their scientists they would have had nukes.
But then again, if they didn't have bat-shit crazy fascism, maybe there wouldn't have been a WWII?
If nothing else, this post was awesome for directing me to "Home, home on Lagrange"
Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus Where the three-body problem is solved, Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K, And the cold virus never evolved. (chorus)
We eat algae pie, our vacuum is high, Our ball bearings are perfectly round. Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed, And a kilogram weighs half a pound. (chorus)
If we run out of space for our burgeoning race No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart, If we just find a big enough wrench. (chorus)
I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space, And living up here is a bore. Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye 'Cause I'm moving next week to L4! (chorus)
CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange, Where the space debris always collects, We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams: Solar power and zero-gee sex.
It's like the entire 70's were just ahead of their time.
Wow dude, that reads like some serious hard-ball propaganda. You really don't like Iran do you?
Jesus, where to start. The economic sanctions have hurt them, but the economy isn't in shambles. They still have A LOT of oil. And as long as someone buys it, the sanctions don't do much to that. I mean, China is buying the oil, a fungible resource. It's #2 in OPEC. Honestly, US shale oil from fraking is probably hurting them more than the sanctions.
You'll see it is already checkmate on Iran.
Wow, that's some serious fluff you've got going on there. Checkmate.
the rest of the middle east which mostly hates them will get nukes about five minutes later
Where the hell does this come from? Is the USA going to give nukes to the Saudis? To Jordan? To Iraq!? oh hell no.
And we've already (very foolishly) given at least a couple nukes to Israel.
The Iranians have overdosed on their "great satan" propaganda.
You realize that the "great-satan" guy Ahmadinnerplate doesn't have any power right? He's a spokesperson for the nation. And he got voted out in 2013 and replaced by a more moderate guy.
Imagine a different world. A world where Iran wasn't going out of its way to be a dick head.
That'd probably involve a world where the CIA and Britian and didn't overthrow their government and install a puppet-dictator in a blatant oil-grab. Blowback is a bitch isn't it?
They could be an industrial power in the middle east. The Germany or Japan of the region.
Of the region? "The region" is EARTH, and our neighbors are CHINA, who makes everything. Welcome to globalization. It's been going on for a while.
A minor oil exporter
Wut? Sure, they used to be #3 back in 2011, but they're still #7 in 2014. Right above UAE.
And what did they get in return for [trying to be a nuclear power]?
Power. The threat of power. The compromise from the the western powers at the negotiating table when it comes to Iranian power. And I believe they're working on nuclear sovereignty like their neighbors Pakistan and India.
why do it? Besides fetal lead poisoning leading to chemically induced retardation
Wow dude, wtf?
history... colonialism... so what?
It wasn't actually colonialism. Iran was established and civilized during the colonial period. The major historical event that someone else has obviously told you about before was in the 50
s and after 30 years they took back their country. It's that revolution is the reason that the USA is being dicks to Iran. Both sides are holding grudges for pretty bad shit in the past.
What relevance does that have on 2015?
Yeah, I'd say more recent events like the USA unilaterally invading and occupying their neighbor would be a more relevant issue affecting the political landscape. 300,000 dead civvies is not something you just overlook.
The Iranians should be trying to make friends with the US.
Says the US nationalist. It would end sanctions though, that's a plus. I'm REALLY not too sure about that whole military security thing. Imagine if Ukraine had nukes.
Really, there's a legitimate argument here that Iran's nuclear program hasn't been a good idea in the long run, even when you consider the political power that comes with being nuclear armed. But you're just so over the top and blinded to the reality of the situation that I had to say something. Ease up on the kool-aid or you might get fooled into thinking the next pointless war is going to pay itself off in 3 months.
Your counter-claim is that all anarchys are capitalisms
Read it again. My claim is that capitalism is a lot like anarchy. There are some important differences. If they're so similar that you didn't notice, well, that's kinda my point.
But really, my main thrust is that in a capitalistic society you have to simply hope that the players are playing fair, and that there are plenty of ways for powerful people screw over the masses for profit.
I think you mean:
The 'invisible hand' is term used as a way of saying that you hope allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves will actually result in benefits to society and you're wishing on a prayer that they don't have backroom deals, aren't colluding, , regulatory capture, or that one doesn't have a stranglehold on the other bending them over barrel.
There we go.
Anarchy is a system in which trade, industry, the means of production, as well as security, politics, and basic rights are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector?
Those aren't minimum wage jobs.
So what? We're talking about advocating education, and specifically about universal vocational education, ie the state paying for college, tech school, trade school, or such.
Yes, those ARE NOT minimum wage jobs. They are jobs that have more demand, and therefore have higher wages. We need more of these people. We should make more of these people. With education.
Is your goal to make as many people scrounge out a living on minimum wage as possible?
Also, historically, mechanization, paradigm shifts, and other such major business process changes aren't there to shift labor up the pipe.
The hell? Remember when 80% of the workforce used to be farmers? Then they moved more towards factories. Do you not see that shift from the primary to secondary industry? There will always be some people in the primary industries (I don't think complete automation is really viable), but the bulk of the demand for workers has indeed shifted up the pipe. That might not have been the intended goal of industrialization, but it's a consequence of it. Regardless, you can't possibly argue that there HAS been a shift from the primary sector, to the secondary, to the tertiary. Knowledge workers is where the jobs are at. Don't be dense.
I think your "thousands of hours" have given you a bit of an ego. Because, no, it took you THREE promptings to refute my points, and then you wave away the points with "That's an anecdote" and "[universal education doesn't make minimum wage jobs]". Yeah, you're hearing 2+2=5, but that's not what I'm saying. You're going to win a lot of arguments that way, but lose all your debates.
And... really? You think getting an engineering degree is going to "fail" since other people want those engineering jobs? HA! Well this might just be an anecdote, but it worked pretty well for me. And every other engineer I know.
There really isn't an infinite demand market for scientists and engineers. Where would we get infinite money?
With time. Imagine you had an oil well which never ran dry. Or a farm with an infinitely sized plot. You could pump up as much oil or grow as much corn as you wanted, but you'd flood the market and see diminishing returns. Science and engineering has an unlimited amount of..... "advancement" that they can go work on. That's not the same as an infinite demand. Demand for science comes and goes, and it's mostly a matter of businesses or armies wanting to one-up their neighbor. But there's an infinite amount of work. And I'm not so sure there are diminishing returns.
as opposed to having businesses who understand their own needs develop the work force, hiring entrants and managing their education far more efficiently.
Wow, corporate control over not only the wages of all their workers, but also the primary force of upward social mobility.... yeah, that paints a pleasant picture of the future.
Siiiiiigh, the saddest part about all this is that I agree with your main idea. A guaranteed income, or a citizen's dividend, sounds like a good idea. But GOD DAMN are you hard to talk to about it. Really, your views on everything else are kinda turning me off of the idea.
How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.
Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).
That's not an emotional appeal or just an ancedote that showcases the need to pick the right degree that has the ability to pay off college debt. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to continue with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that post.
You talk a lot but you don't listen too well.
I absolutely agree that's not what the supreme court ruled. And that this interpretation is a post-decision spin of the losing side. The talking point that PopeRatzo was using was stating that the far right does not hold this view. They believe it and want it to be true. As shown by their leadership. Neither you, I, or PopeRatzo believe that corporations are people, but I present you with the republican presidential candidate himself saying that corporations are people.... and you think this is some sort of democratic party lie? We most certainly don't want corporations to be treated like people. That's a horrible thing. Even PopeRatzo is claiming that only crazy right-wingers believe that.
Romney is responding to a heckler who called for taxes to be raised, not on people, but on corporations. Mitt's response is "corporations are people my friend", "Of course they are".
And sure, he goes on to try and point out that the money that goes to corporation goes into people's pockets and corporations are made of people, but none of that matters. Because the entire argument here is whether or not corporations can be treated as people. Sure, they're made of people, usually, but are they treated like people? Do they have right like people? And Romney in on the record buying into the belief that the supreme court ruled that corporations are people. Because he wants that to be true.
advocate education
This is an emotional appeal most people have fallen for.
No it isn't. Did you see the part where I countered that I paid off my own student debt in 3 years as opposed to your hypothetical 30 year mortgage?
How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.
Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).
That's not an emotional appeal. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to open up with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that.
Let's see....
With college education,
I also called out tech and trade schools, but I don't think the distinction is important here.
and they know what direction their business is moving in;
Anyone who tells you a business can't predict its need for technical people in 5 years and would be completely ineffective at planning for their workforce effectively has no idea what he's talking about.
Pft. You crazy? Are you selectively looking at giant corporations that make widgets that have a 30 year shelf-life? There are startups that genesis, rise, fall, and get resurrected in the span of 5 years. No, "the business" can't predict it's needs and available revenue 5 years into the future. Knowing what their needs and revenue RIGHT NOW is difficult for most of them.
The bigger the company is, the more momentum they probably have, but also the more moving parts. The smaller, the more volatile they're going to be. And it's not like the little guys have an entire division to do market analysis.
they can manage their human resources effectively by building skills in their employees.
That'd be lovely, but all too often we see them preferring to simply hire contractors who already have the skills. But hey, it DOES happen. I know a small firm that hired a smart english major and someone working towards their CS degree, and had the senior engineer train them up for years. Now, the english-major-now-experienced-programmer jumped ship for better pay and the college student can only put in 20hr/week due to classes, but it's a good idea in principle.
Yeah, I dunno dude. I'm not feeling like the rest of that rant is going to be worth the effort.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salar...
Yeah, $60K for a registered nurse doesn't sound like much with a high cost of living area like DC. That sucks.
Still, with the right degree, it's not an endless amount of debt. I had mine paid off in 3 years. I hear it's more expensive now though. Advocate In-State yo.
Really any welfare reform is going to have to address the shift from primary->secondary->Tertiary economies. There's an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers. You should advocate education. In all it's forms.
it will set precedent by giving valid reason to occasionally manipulate the system by handing out more welfare money, which is exactly what I want to never do
Yeah, I dunno dude, automation keeps taking away more jobs. When they come for the paper pushers, I'm not sure I'm going to say anything. If your stated goal is to cut welfare money, then I don't think you're going to get a lot of believers. It's like how Nixon was caught bringing in the system of HMOs because he wanted it to reduce care and funnel money in the right direction.
My simulations indicate
it is extremely nuanced in theory, and only simple in practice when you've ingested a ton of theory and come up with a rough diagram that doesn't violate that theory
Oh get off it dude. Any economic plan like this is tied to the hip of sociology. And sociology is the softest of sciences and everyone is just guessing. It might be better informed guesses than the average shmuck, and avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls, but I have little faith that any social plan will work as intended. And if you don't think economics have anything to do with human culture and social trends, then I have zero faith in any economic plan you have. Like you said, it's complex.
Still, it's probably a good plan. Might be better than the current welfare system we have. I doubt it will be any less complex, or at least won't become as complex in time. The part where everyone has it, and there's no issue with getting on or getting off of it is a good idea. It solves the problem with the one-rung-up people having it the hardest. And the stigma of taking a handout. Although some would argue there should be a stigma as an encouragement to get off the dole. The part where the social security admin has to directly process contracts between citizens and slum lords is probably a no-go.
That's just a talking point of the left,
And Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate who the republican party voted for over Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and beat out Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Richard Perry, and that Cain guy.
He was the figure head and leading member of the republican party. It's not just a talking point of the left. It's something the republican leadership wanted to be true. If that rubs you the wrong way, you really ought to take another look at your political party.
Because of course corporations aren't people. That's crazy talk that will make you unelectable.
oh geeze, strike that. I suck.
Hate to break this to you.... But....