I know this is a bit off topic, but since the news is a bit old and I wanted to mention this weeks ago, I figure the slashdotters will like it.
The Museum of Holography is an awesome visit if you come to Chicago for any reason. It is minutes outside of downtown and half hour from O'hare. It is really an interesting place (a bit commercialized lately) and the greatest thing is it completely passed the Wife Acceptance Factor as Oprah's HARPO studios is just down the street. Drop the lady off at their store and hit the Museum of Holography.
Lincoln started the War between States to prevent secession, which up to that point was considered my many states to be within the rights of the States as set forth by the 9th and 10th Amendment.
Lincoln HATED blacks. The Emancipation Proclamation even kept states within the Union as slave states! The Wiki for the EP covers much of this.
Lincoln forced the South the secede as he planned on taxing and setting tariffs on the South in order to pay off his cronies for "improvements" in the North. The South threatened to leave the Union if Lincoln was elected on his platform -- Henry Clay's American System. Lincoln loved Clay and Hamilton, they wanted a mercantilist society in America. They wanted a central bank (so they could legally counterfeit money) they wanted corporate welfare for their cronies, they wanted a huge military to expand the empire. The Whigs fell apart and became the Republicans -- who still love all 3 items (central banking, empirism and corporate welfare).
If you want a great read, pick up DiLorenzos' "The Real Lincoln." You can get it at most Borders book stores. I offer a nice deal, too. If you buy the book and DON'T like it, tell me what you paid and I'll buy it back from you plus shipping (within reason, no books over $30). I'll give it to someone who is interested.
DiLorenzo posts regularly on LRC: www.lewrockwell.com Do a search for his name and he often has information on Lincoln. His book has hundreds of footnotes including quoting Lincoln himself.
The tragedy of the War between States is the lies and myths that the Lincoln-lovers in education and history writing tend to spread. Lincoln was the worst tyrant, and completely destroyed the Union over corporate welfare. The book is amazing and a complete eye opener.
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves outside of the United States. Lincoln hated blacks (he wanted to deport them to Haiti and wrote the Illinois law banning black immigration).
He wrote the EP to free slaves in a country not in his control. Scary myth you mentioned as it is false.
Under your interpretation of free speech, it would be perfectly fine to cry "fire" in a public place (say, the Capitol building) and you would bear no responsibility for the resulting chaos that ensued, even if people were trampled to death during the panic.
Congress shall make NO LAW... who doesn't make any sense?
If I scream fire in the Capitol building, and you trample another -- you committed the violent act. If I hear someone yell fire, I look, I smell, I consider.
Oh, when I was younger my parents' house did burn down while I was in the house -- and I left calmly while still telling my mother-in-law that the house was on fire. My brother and his friend also ran out calmly.
The one who does the trampling should be found guilty of murder, especially if they ran with no obvious signs of fire.
So if I tell someone to shoot the principal that would be exercising my free speech?
In my anarchocapitalist belief system, yes.
This country was founded on the idea that you can say what you want to say as long as you don't physically harm another person or their physical property. The initial revolt was no different than "We should defend our rights, and in doing so we will kill in defense."
I think inciting a riot or inciting others to do violence is still free speech -- the person who riots or performs violence is the person who commits a crime.
If the day comes for revolution, I don't want to see the government using speech to jail "traitors."
This problem can be solved through software already -- the school didn't take necessary means to avoid such a simple "DoS" style attack.
Even so, it seems crazy to me to waste taxpayer dollars chasing down this citizen and even more dollars prosecuting him. While the law is supposed to be around to protect property, I don't see how this is a felony. He didn't do the refreshing, did he? He used his right to speak freely.
I'm sure I'll hear the standard arguments about how speech can be regulated and I repudiate all of them. Crying fire in a theatre is private property -- the Constitution protects nothing on private property and the theatre owner is responsible for setting the standards of speech. Telling someone how to make a bomb is also free expression/speech -- you're not making the bomb. In this case, if clicking excessively is a crime (I can't believe it would be), the people who did the act should be indicted.
I'd love to see what real crimes are happening right now in Canton City -- murders, rapes, thefts. Speeding tickets and telling people to refresh a website repeatedly are nothing compared to real property crime. The last quote about trying to solve them reads more to me like they're "trying to find ways to exploit them."
For the school -- they can now expect this to happen more often. The publicity in charging this guy is going to be mostly negative in the minds of the students. All we need now is to get the link visible on slashdot, right?
Actually, you make one big mistake that really makes your entire rant against me sort of invalid:
STOP expecting a double standard between scientists and 'citizens'.
I never made a double standard between scientists and citizens. I compare and contract public workers for private workers. Public workers to me are becoming less and less human as I interact more with them. They know they're powerful, they know they're hard to fire, and they take advantage of it in subpar products and services created.
Then you take this incorrect viewpoint of my opinion and extend it:
You will ALWAYS find mixtures of decent, honest people in a much outweighed ratio with lying, backstabbing, climb-my-way-to-the-top types. It just so happens, for the most part, the scientific community (as well as the world) became flooded with the latter.
It is when I deal with the publicly-funded worker that I find the worst liars, backstabbers and climb-their-way-to-the-top types. The scientific community recently found more money in taxpayer grants, is it any wonder that we're seeing more lying, backstabing, climb-their-way-to-the-top scientists lately?
Could that be said to those who volunteer their time to help others? Would Mother Teresa fall under this conjecture? I feel that there is a subtle issue with that perspective.
Mother Teresa profited from her volunteerism: she gained the light of God from it. This was a personal feeling, no matter what anyone said. She was most happy helping the suffering -- would she do it if she didn't find a profit, even a spiritual one?
Of course we are all in the business of self-preservation, but the problem with a free market is that is only self-serving without consideration for the greater society for which it operates in.
That is completely wrong. In the free market, we address what is best for us now and in the long run, and make our decisions for actions based on both. The long run means how our customers will feel about our product/service after the fact. No one is completely self-involved except for the insane. Every action in a market considers the long run, or that action will have a negative reaction for the performer.
This market is not even free of basic rules or regulation that serve to limit the excess that can occur when 'haves' take from 'have nots'. Perhaps a better term is capitalistic market since the purpose of a market is to increase capital.
Actually, once you incorporate any regulation or taxation or licensing scheme into a market, it is no longer capitalism, it is merchantilism (preferential treatment of the cronies, in all reality). The free market means free to act based on one's self interest. Look at it this way: when you buy a banana, you profit along with the grocer. He gains a buck, you gain a banana. You both gained more than you gave up.
very much appreciate that I get a paycheck for the work I provide, but it is less the focus of my satifaction then whether I work for a good team, a competent boss, a cool project, or a decent company.
Because you know you'll stay happy in the future -- still a profit. Happiness is a big profit motive.
I worked some odd jobs when I was downsized for two years, because I still needed to maintain my fiscal responsibilities. Those jobs did not make me want to grow in them since I never wanted a career in those fields.
So you accepted a lower happiness profit just so your financial profit would stay stable until you could find a job with a good financial and emotional profit level.
The problem is that you need well trained managers, executive that can see beyond the next quarterly report, and a society mindset that refuses to accept the lowest goods and service.
Sure do, and the employers who want the brightest futures make these decisions. Companies that don't care about the long run don't last.
Great post, sorry to everyone for continuing the OT.
As a practicing scientist, I can tell you that while the self preservation instinct will tend to make you take less chances and do more "conservative" science, it does not lead you to start lying and fabricating results.
I agree with you in a free market -- competition tends to push out the bad seeds. But in a public forum, where it is nearly impossible to fire teachers, policemen and departmental workers, will bad scientists who are publicly funded also be hard to nix?
Yes, cronyism happens, but if your work is poor, you will cease to be supported in the long term. This is fair enough for those who require assitance with their moral compass.
Judging from the quality of teachers and workers at the local DMV, I tend to disagree. In my business we can fire someone for bad work, but I constantly see the same foul workers in the public forum. I'm just concerned about that part -- public funding of scientists. If all science went to public funding, would they fink on each other or prop each other up?
Does this mean you sell out your friends, family, spouse, values for the right price? This scares me.
Of cousre I do -- so does everyone. At some point in time we all say "I have to work harder right now in order to put food on the table, so I'll be unable to spend time with my family/go to church/etc etc" It isn't undermining one's values, it is seeing where one is needed most, and looking at the future based on two different decisions.
They need to put food on the table like everybody else, but, fortunately, lying and cheating are not required to maintain this level.
I hope you're right. I just know that as we start funding more market needs through the taxpayer's pocket, we're seeing lower quality service. Look at the emergency rooms in hospitals -- when hospitals were forced by law to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay, the service deteriorated. I would never go to an emergency room. My lady's best friend works for a huge hospital, her son broke his wrist and she actually waited for a clinic visit over the ER based on her experiences. Stories like this can be told ad infinitum.
First, I know my parents trusted scientists when they said carbs were good, margarine was good and butter was bad. The homeopaths were crying foul from day one, and have been decrying the previous Food Pyramid for years. Now it seems the natural foods freaks were right/
Second, I know that scientists are just humans like you and I -- their income depends on being right more than being wrong. Cooked books would seem to be the norm, especially when public money is at stake. Remember the second hand smoke lies that were found wrong by the Supreme Court but are still being used today to ban smoking in restaurants? These were honored and respected scientists funded by public dollars -- and they lied.
I'm guessing you'd call for licensing for scientists -- so we end up with the same high costs and low quality service we get in any licensed industry. I'm glad we have the "whack-jobs" of alternative medicine. I may not agree with what they have to say, but I know I want to see private industry competition to what is quickly becoming a public industry: science and the politicing that comes along with public funding of it.
A few weeks ago I posted a question on slashdot regarding scientists and ethics and was completely chewed out for it. It was NOT meant to be a troll, it was an honest question.
I've had some time to rethink the question and instead of finding answers (via Google as well as talking to scientists via e-mail who read my initial question), I have more questions.
I'm a free market guy -- I truly believe that everyone performs actions that help themselves first (and others, secondly, if they want to continue doing what they do). I believe we take jobs in order to pay our bills, and we do our jobs with the consideration of what will keep us employed, and what will give us bigger financial opportunities in the future. I believe that employers are the customers of employees, and that is how I judge employer-employee relations.
Scientists are starting to scare me. Many scientists find funding through government or taxpayer-funded programs and grants. Are we dealing with the same quality of people who review and allow frivolous patents and lawsuits to be enforced? Will we start seeing more scientists under review for doing what we all do in our jobs -- try and find ways to increase our pay while keeping our work the same (or lower).
In the past there was peer review, but when we involve public funds, I fear what I saw in my consulting business: many consultants bidding on public jobs in a "boat race" -- 5 or 6 state-licensed consultants allowing each other to win a bid in a round robin fashion. I don't do any state jobs because of the collusion I saw in my industries.
When I decry public funding of science, I'm blasted because people say that the free market won't pay for certain research. Now I see a more evil side of it -- and I fear that we'll see more investigations like this if I'm right. What can we do to combat humanity's deep need for self preservation in a scientist having the same human drives, especially when it is funded straight out of our pocket involuntarily?
I consult with financial broker dealers and they are often required to record "order line" phone conversations. We sell numerous "digital direct" recording packages for these clients. Some of them feed the information (via IP) to a central clearinghouse that stores and even analyzes orders. Sort of scary.
Makes me wonder why so many people in college continue to get "marketing" degrees and then graduate knowing only what was strong in the 90s. I wonder how many marketing degrees today the future (theories and realities) of business marketing.
Thus, with "Advertising 2.0", we're in the exact same spot we are now, except our privacy has been sold to whoever wants to pay.
I completely agree with the beginning, and disagree with the end result. In time, I believe we'll see a combination of cable+tivo+akimbo+itunes offering for everyone in every situation: TV at home, cell phone, laptop on the go, etc.
If you want free content, you'll have to give up your privacy -- that is how you pay for it. You don't have the time to tell advertisers who you are so they can pay for your content, so you'll let another viewer aggregator do it for you. Thank God for Google.
If you want to pay for content, I believe that option will increase with time. Right now, iTunes is "free" because they have no infrastructure for you to support, unlike the cable and Satellite companies. People moan about paying $100 a month, but do you know how much those HD-DVRs and "free" satellite dishs cost? Someone's paying for that infrastructure. Taking all that into account, free channels on cable are still truly free. Yet you'll be able to pay for them in the future, a la carte. If you don't want to pay a la carte, give up your private information for free content.
The choice will be ours, and Google will be part of the movement to bring in this new era where the end user has more control, not less.
I personally don't care who knows who I am calling -- in fact I openly release my cell phone data to all my customers as I bill them by the minute when they call me (plus they can see who else calls me which helps when someone says I might have overcharged them).
My bigger concern has always been who could have the content of any calls recorded. I know the phone companies "don't" and I doubt government has any concern for what I talk about, but there is proprietary information we all discuss on the phone (nothing illegal, just ideas and other information I'd rather not share). Digital cell transmissions are already nicely compressed for transmission and those data streams are just perfect to stick on a huge hard drive and use in the future.
I have no political aspirations, so I guess my information would be totally useless in order to try to hurt me publicly, but for those who do think about the future -- is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?
I was working on some scotch theory with a very good friend about 6 months ago -- we were both in a very short lived video production business ages ago. I had recently considered adapting Google to television in a very unique way and wanted his input.
My thought was to take television's closed captioning text and IMDB show data and run it through Google's "I'm feeling lucky" API in real time. Eventually you could have really cool "pop up" information program running that can give you pop up information correlated to what is happening on screen. Software running on a Media Center PC (or a Tivo?) could give you real time information on actors and what they're talking about. Imagine watching ER, wondering about a disease or illness they're talking about, and instantly having that information pop up without anything but a button click (if even that). Remember VH1's Pop Up Video?
As the conversation moved forward, we realized the real power of bringing Google to TV is advertising -- bringing ads to the web (more than just a GIF or SWF) and bringing web ads to the television -- contextual of course. Hours passed and the ideas that moved through the conversation seemed revolutionary (until we realized that Brin is a billionaire and we, well, aren't). Google certainly has the most powerful contextual algorithms in the market (although Yahoo is quickly catching up). Google's use of gmail and possibly AOL e-mails and IMs to aggregate even MORE user data (not just contextually but also within a physical region) will definitely give them more specific insight into a user's needs based on more than just what they browse.
The number one complaint I hear on why people use Tivo (or ThePirateBay as it seems to be lately) is that advertising sucks -- it is unimportant, too generalized and the same thing over and over. During our conversation half a year ago I made mention of how I'd love to see old commercials for current products -- the old Coke commercials are priceless (and comical) and there is NO reason why Google couldn't offer to bring back this and more. Instead of the same 40 ads in rotation, they have over 60 years or so of advertising they could bring back (some pre-TV movie theatre advertising) and stick in rotation, especially if the company is more logo-centric than actual product-minded.
I just signed on to Akimbo (need to set it up on my MCE box) and wonder how long it will be before these guys connect with Google. Tivo, Akimbo and MCE are programmable set top boxes just waiting to be utilized by Google. As even video game systems become more of a set-top programming station rather than a specific use peripheral, Google has an opportunity to really jump on everyone's hardware rather than design and sell their own. "Designed for Google!" could be the new sticker on every consumer device.
The conversation finished up (as far as I remember, I wish I recorded these nights of single malt drinking!) with us discussing things that Google might not even have put much weight in at the time -- SMS, VoIP, WAP searches and other data to be aggregated and utilized. If Google offers free VoIP, what prevents them from anonymously and generically aggregating your phone call keywords? If you're using Google SMS searches from your GPS-enabled phone, what prevents them from offering advertising to a local business (other than the one you're searching for). Taking all that information into their data centers and using their complex heuristic analysis gives them an awesome amount of information that advertisers could only have dreamed of 10 years ago. Being able to match price to need is also a big deal -- imagine what car dealers would offer Google for a local car buyer searching for a deal or how Google could knock around the realty market? Not exactly topical in terms of television advertising, maybe, but Google + Advertising can change how we define "on demand programming" nonetheless. Tomorrow's TV could just be today's BitTorrent with the Go
I agree that there seems to be a market for this mouse. Since I use 2 laptops, 2 PDAs and 3 cell phones (off and on, not all at the exact same time!) as well as some other portable devices (GPS, etc), this mouse isn't for me. I like the form factor and the idea behind it, but I'm happy with my "other" bluetooth standard sized mouse. I just wish it had a standard charging port:)
While I think this is definitely an idea with cool-factor, I'm not sure I'd ever use it. I seriously carry dozens of devices in a month of use that all use different charging mechanisms, and this one is probably the one I'd be the least likely to use.
What I would really like to see is a more standard charging mechanism. The micro-USB (mini-USB?) port is a great start, but I don't think laptops could charge well over a USB port. I see Motorola cell phones with the port (including my wife's) but my Samsung t809 has a proprietary jack. Most new laptops I use now have a DC port insteed of an AC port (external power supply) which is a good start, but they're always different amperage and voltage requirements.
How about a standard appearing soon? Does anyone else get frustrated carrying around 9 chargers for trips? My most powerful charger is a 2A 6V charger for an older PDA -- works fine, takes up little room, works internationally. 2A and 6V should be enough for anything, why bother with all the standards?
I'm guessing the retail industry pushes for the different jacks -- one more adapter to sell the customer for a huge markup. Maybe the move to Amazon and eBay buying will let the manufacturers find a bigger profit on their primary device sales by standardizing on a charging jack -- mini USB, 6V DC plug, whatever.
The Hunt brothers fiasco was due entirely to people looking at silver as an investment, not as a store of wealth. They didn't corner the market, they cornered the investors and fooled them into chasing the next Big Thing. This is not what I do -- I research heavily the production manipulations, the central bank manipulations, the mining manipulations, the jeweler manipulations and the investor manipulations and figure out what I believe is a fair price based on the need and use of a metal.
For me, metal pricing in the short run IS screwed up when it is a commodity investment, but it always corrects itself. The same is true with stocks, but stocks are rarely based on actually owning anything. Stocks rarely pay dividends and stocks rarely give you real control over what you are buying. Gold and silver are strong for me as I physically own them -- I don't buy paper. The Hunt brothers sold people paper, and that is part of the problem with today's gold market -- too many paper shares are trading hands again, but I blog about this daily when I see short term manipulations ahead (as I do now).
I would never have bought all my gold in a 1 week period. I buy it as I need money, cost dollar averaging my worth over time. Anyone who jumps into anything all at once is destined to be doomed.
That's great. Considering the annual rate of currency devaluation by all the central banks, 40% is a great profit. Hope it stays that way, especially with fuel and energy costs skyrocketing again.
Which is money in the bank cause when my son gets sick I take him to the hospital without thinking twice. $20 copay? Who cares.
It is thinking like this that makes medical bills so high and insurance premiums so high. Insurance was meant for emeregencies, not to pay your doctor's bills for basic illnesses. My insurance premiums are super low because I never file a claim or use a copay or take "advantage" of prescription drug benefits. I pay cash, up front, before service, and get a huge discount from all my doctors and dentists. You pay a $20 copay, the insurance company pays $150, eventually. I pay $50 cash up front and don't worry about high premiums. If I should have a real emergency (thousands and thousands of dollars) I'll file a claim.
Gold is a poor investment, but then again you already have a few slashbots telling you that. Anything more than a couple percent in gold is just too much.
Gold is NOT an investment. If gold goes up against the dollar, it means that the dollar is going down. I'd like to see gold stabilize so I know my savings is solid. For a return, I'd invest locally as I previously said, and have full control of the business.
If you're interested in a long term bet, I'll bet you 2 ounces of gold that your stocks in 5 years have declined majorly and your retirement programs will fall so hard you'll have to work an extra 15-20 years. 2 ounces of gold -- want to risk it? I made the same bet 5 years ago and won big, I'll be happy to continue to make this bet every 5 years as the next run of "suckers" puts their money into the new big stock and believes they'll be millionaires in 20 years. They will be, but a millionaire inflated dollars will be worth a quarter of its previous value.
Whoops! You're right. This makes my point even MORE important.
If I told you I could save you 50 cents a year, but I just need you to spend a few hours calling your representative, would you? Probably not.
If I told you I could earn you US$150,000,000 a year and all you need to do is give about 40% of that back to lobbyists, would you?
This perspective is really important when you realize that it isn't the money that is corrupt, it is the Congress that is abusing the Constitutionally limited powers they're supposed to have.
Just FYI, gold is not an investment. Gold is a store of wealth, a currency, a money. I would never tell you to buy dollars as an investment, why would you think I meant gold is an investment? Gold is merely the same thing as a bank, except it isn't manipulated like the banking cartels are, and it isn't controlled by fiat as the dollar is.
Don't let the receant upswing fool you, unless this defies history, it's only temporary.
Historically, gold as been the only store of wealth that has survived every empire, every currency. Gold has held its value for hundreds of years (thousands possibly). When gold had swings was usually when gold was found in mass quantity (5 times in all of history) and when governments manipulated gold (1913, 1931, and 1974). Since 1974, gold has felt some central bank manipulations (the Bank of England was a big one). As gold has entered the hands of private holders, central banks are less likely to manipulate it. Nonetheless, my blog covers the daily manipulations by mines, central banks and investment houses.
I feel gold has an equilibrium against the dollar of between US$1200 and US$1800 right now. As Greenspan (and soon Bernanke) continues to inflate the dollar, this value will go up. It won't go up (and may temporarily go down with further profit taking) without faith in the dollar collapsing -- which may never happen.
It flucuates up and down, of course, it's been as low as $264 and as high as $900, but only temporarily. Actually, if you discount the peak in 1980 it's never gone for above $650 which was in 1981
All correct. The US$264 minimum happened when two central banks dumped gold -- a great increase in supply will always show a great decrease in price. The US$900 price swing was due to investor stupidity, IMO. Just like the stock market sees bubbles created by excess dollars chasing stocks stupidly, the peak was not meant to be at that time. I do believe that we'll see gold hit US$600 this year, but I also believe we'll see it drop to the upper US$460s late February or early March. I am really bugged that investors are buying gold, disturbing the proper supply and demand as we'd see from industrial uses and the monetizing of gold.
Had you bought in 1985, your gold would be worth maybe $100 more per ounce in absolute terms, but in relitive dollars it'd be worth less due to inflation.
Bingo. Gold is a store of wealth. Inflation only happens because of currency counterfeiting done (legally) by central banks. In a free market with an open currency standard (anything is currency, basically), you see deflation over time. More people = more productivity = more products = lower prices. Houses fall apart, prices fall. Cars fall apart, prices fall. Except in rare circumstances (such as limited resources, of which the earth has seen few true shortages), prices fall. Involve a central bank counterfeiting our money weekly, and you see prices rise against the fiat currency.
It's a fairly stable medium, in that it's unlikely to ever truly crash and devalue totally, but you can find things nearly as certian that will at least keep up with inflation.
An inflation created by those who control the dollar.
GOLD IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. It is a safe version of the bank. To invest, I buy or invest in local businesses (including my own). I make a great return on my investment. When I have extra money, I buy gold and silver, or I increase the amount of land I own (except where the land is overvalued). If the housing bubble bursts, I'll purchase a home when I see a stable pricing market. I will never buy big houses when housing prices are on a rise.
Considering the Constitution provides for a tiny central government (mostly to make sure that the states don't trample on the freedoms we're all born with, and to provide for a central defense but only if the country is attacked). Lincoln the Tyrant was the first of 3 traitors who worked very hard to turn the country into a mockery of freedom.
While I am anti-State entirely, I can definitely agree that a coalition of independent states that compete with one another would be far better than what we're living under now.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is a bit off topic, but since the news is a bit old and I wanted to mention this weeks ago, I figure the slashdotters will like it.
The Museum of Holography is an awesome visit if you come to Chicago for any reason. It is minutes outside of downtown and half hour from O'hare. It is really an interesting place (a bit commercialized lately) and the greatest thing is it completely passed the Wife Acceptance Factor as Oprah's HARPO studios is just down the street. Drop the lady off at their store and hit the Museum of Holography.
Lincoln started the War between States to prevent secession, which up to that point was considered my many states to be within the rights of the States as set forth by the 9th and 10th Amendment.
Lincoln HATED blacks. The Emancipation Proclamation even kept states within the Union as slave states! The Wiki for the EP covers much of this.
Lincoln forced the South the secede as he planned on taxing and setting tariffs on the South in order to pay off his cronies for "improvements" in the North. The South threatened to leave the Union if Lincoln was elected on his platform -- Henry Clay's American System. Lincoln loved Clay and Hamilton, they wanted a mercantilist society in America. They wanted a central bank (so they could legally counterfeit money) they wanted corporate welfare for their cronies, they wanted a huge military to expand the empire. The Whigs fell apart and became the Republicans -- who still love all 3 items (central banking, empirism and corporate welfare).
If you want a great read, pick up DiLorenzos' "The Real Lincoln." You can get it at most Borders book stores. I offer a nice deal, too. If you buy the book and DON'T like it, tell me what you paid and I'll buy it back from you plus shipping (within reason, no books over $30). I'll give it to someone who is interested.
DiLorenzo posts regularly on LRC: www.lewrockwell.com Do a search for his name and he often has information on Lincoln. His book has hundreds of footnotes including quoting Lincoln himself.
The tragedy of the War between States is the lies and myths that the Lincoln-lovers in education and history writing tend to spread. Lincoln was the worst tyrant, and completely destroyed the Union over corporate welfare. The book is amazing and a complete eye opener.
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves outside of the United States. Lincoln hated blacks (he wanted to deport them to Haiti and wrote the Illinois law banning black immigration).
He wrote the EP to free slaves in a country not in his control. Scary myth you mentioned as it is false.
Just a late FYI.
Under your interpretation of free speech, it would be perfectly fine to cry "fire" in a public place (say, the Capitol building) and you would bear no responsibility for the resulting chaos that ensued, even if people were trampled to death during the panic.
Congress shall make NO LAW... who doesn't make any sense?
If I scream fire in the Capitol building, and you trample another -- you committed the violent act. If I hear someone yell fire, I look, I smell, I consider.
Oh, when I was younger my parents' house did burn down while I was in the house -- and I left calmly while still telling my mother-in-law that the house was on fire. My brother and his friend also ran out calmly.
The one who does the trampling should be found guilty of murder, especially if they ran with no obvious signs of fire.
So if I tell someone to shoot the principal that would be exercising my free speech?
In my anarchocapitalist belief system, yes.
This country was founded on the idea that you can say what you want to say as long as you don't physically harm another person or their physical property. The initial revolt was no different than "We should defend our rights, and in doing so we will kill in defense."
I think inciting a riot or inciting others to do violence is still free speech -- the person who riots or performs violence is the person who commits a crime.
If the day comes for revolution, I don't want to see the government using speech to jail "traitors."
This problem can be solved through software already -- the school didn't take necessary means to avoid such a simple "DoS" style attack.
Even so, it seems crazy to me to waste taxpayer dollars chasing down this citizen and even more dollars prosecuting him. While the law is supposed to be around to protect property, I don't see how this is a felony. He didn't do the refreshing, did he? He used his right to speak freely.
I'm sure I'll hear the standard arguments about how speech can be regulated and I repudiate all of them. Crying fire in a theatre is private property -- the Constitution protects nothing on private property and the theatre owner is responsible for setting the standards of speech. Telling someone how to make a bomb is also free expression/speech -- you're not making the bomb. In this case, if clicking excessively is a crime (I can't believe it would be), the people who did the act should be indicted.
I'd love to see what real crimes are happening right now in Canton City -- murders, rapes, thefts. Speeding tickets and telling people to refresh a website repeatedly are nothing compared to real property crime. The last quote about trying to solve them reads more to me like they're "trying to find ways to exploit them."
For the school -- they can now expect this to happen more often. The publicity in charging this guy is going to be mostly negative in the minds of the students. All we need now is to get the link visible on slashdot, right?
Actually, you make one big mistake that really makes your entire rant against me sort of invalid:
STOP expecting a double standard between scientists and 'citizens'.
I never made a double standard between scientists and citizens. I compare and contract public workers for private workers. Public workers to me are becoming less and less human as I interact more with them. They know they're powerful, they know they're hard to fire, and they take advantage of it in subpar products and services created.
Then you take this incorrect viewpoint of my opinion and extend it:
You will ALWAYS find mixtures of decent, honest people in a much outweighed ratio with lying, backstabbing, climb-my-way-to-the-top types. It just so happens, for the most part, the scientific community (as well as the world) became flooded with the latter.
It is when I deal with the publicly-funded worker that I find the worst liars, backstabbers and climb-their-way-to-the-top types. The scientific community recently found more money in taxpayer grants, is it any wonder that we're seeing more lying, backstabing, climb-their-way-to-the-top scientists lately?
Could that be said to those who volunteer their time to help others? Would Mother Teresa fall under this conjecture? I feel that there is a subtle issue with that perspective.
Mother Teresa profited from her volunteerism: she gained the light of God from it. This was a personal feeling, no matter what anyone said. She was most happy helping the suffering -- would she do it if she didn't find a profit, even a spiritual one?
Of course we are all in the business of self-preservation, but the problem with a free market is that is only self-serving without consideration for the greater society for which it operates in.
That is completely wrong. In the free market, we address what is best for us now and in the long run, and make our decisions for actions based on both. The long run means how our customers will feel about our product/service after the fact. No one is completely self-involved except for the insane. Every action in a market considers the long run, or that action will have a negative reaction for the performer.
This market is not even free of basic rules or regulation that serve to limit the excess that can occur when 'haves' take from 'have nots'. Perhaps a better term is capitalistic market since the purpose of a market is to increase capital.
Actually, once you incorporate any regulation or taxation or licensing scheme into a market, it is no longer capitalism, it is merchantilism (preferential treatment of the cronies, in all reality). The free market means free to act based on one's self interest. Look at it this way: when you buy a banana, you profit along with the grocer. He gains a buck, you gain a banana. You both gained more than you gave up.
very much appreciate that I get a paycheck for the work I provide, but it is less the focus of my satifaction then whether I work for a good team, a competent boss, a cool project, or a decent company.
Because you know you'll stay happy in the future -- still a profit. Happiness is a big profit motive.
I worked some odd jobs when I was downsized for two years, because I still needed to maintain my fiscal responsibilities. Those jobs did not make me want to grow in them since I never wanted a career in those fields.
So you accepted a lower happiness profit just so your financial profit would stay stable until you could find a job with a good financial and emotional profit level.
The problem is that you need well trained managers, executive that can see beyond the next quarterly report, and a society mindset that refuses to accept the lowest goods and service.
Sure do, and the employers who want the brightest futures make these decisions. Companies that don't care about the long run don't last.
Great post, sorry to everyone for continuing the OT.
As a practicing scientist, I can tell you that while the self preservation instinct will tend to make you take less chances and do more "conservative" science, it does not lead you to start lying and fabricating results.
I agree with you in a free market -- competition tends to push out the bad seeds. But in a public forum, where it is nearly impossible to fire teachers, policemen and departmental workers, will bad scientists who are publicly funded also be hard to nix?
Yes, cronyism happens, but if your work is poor, you will cease to be supported in the long term. This is fair enough for those who require assitance with their moral compass.
Judging from the quality of teachers and workers at the local DMV, I tend to disagree. In my business we can fire someone for bad work, but I constantly see the same foul workers in the public forum. I'm just concerned about that part -- public funding of scientists. If all science went to public funding, would they fink on each other or prop each other up?
Does this mean you sell out your friends, family, spouse, values for the right price? This scares me.
Of cousre I do -- so does everyone. At some point in time we all say "I have to work harder right now in order to put food on the table, so I'll be unable to spend time with my family/go to church/etc etc" It isn't undermining one's values, it is seeing where one is needed most, and looking at the future based on two different decisions.
They need to put food on the table like everybody else, but, fortunately, lying and cheating are not required to maintain this level.
I hope you're right. I just know that as we start funding more market needs through the taxpayer's pocket, we're seeing lower quality service. Look at the emergency rooms in hospitals -- when hospitals were forced by law to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay, the service deteriorated. I would never go to an emergency room. My lady's best friend works for a huge hospital, her son broke his wrist and she actually waited for a clinic visit over the ER based on her experiences. Stories like this can be told ad infinitum.
Great post, but one caveat for readers of the free market variety: DARPA is no winning public research wing.
DARPA was the branch behind the TIA -- Total Information Awareness campaign. The "D" in DARPA standards for defense.
DARPA's was recently run by Poindexter, the guy behind the Iran-Contra conspiracy.
DARPA's in involved with spying of US citizens in programs such as "Combat Zones That See" and other "analyzers."
DAPRA works with private industry to bring us such wonderful programs as Project Genoa.
I wouldn't call DAPRA a success for freedom and prosperity.
I'm not sure I agree with what you posted.
First, I know my parents trusted scientists when they said carbs were good, margarine was good and butter was bad. The homeopaths were crying foul from day one, and have been decrying the previous Food Pyramid for years. Now it seems the natural foods freaks were right/
Second, I know that scientists are just humans like you and I -- their income depends on being right more than being wrong. Cooked books would seem to be the norm, especially when public money is at stake. Remember the second hand smoke lies that were found wrong by the Supreme Court but are still being used today to ban smoking in restaurants? These were honored and respected scientists funded by public dollars -- and they lied.
I'm guessing you'd call for licensing for scientists -- so we end up with the same high costs and low quality service we get in any licensed industry. I'm glad we have the "whack-jobs" of alternative medicine. I may not agree with what they have to say, but I know I want to see private industry competition to what is quickly becoming a public industry: science and the politicing that comes along with public funding of it.
A few weeks ago I posted a question on slashdot regarding scientists and ethics and was completely chewed out for it. It was NOT meant to be a troll, it was an honest question.
I've had some time to rethink the question and instead of finding answers (via Google as well as talking to scientists via e-mail who read my initial question), I have more questions.
I'm a free market guy -- I truly believe that everyone performs actions that help themselves first (and others, secondly, if they want to continue doing what they do). I believe we take jobs in order to pay our bills, and we do our jobs with the consideration of what will keep us employed, and what will give us bigger financial opportunities in the future. I believe that employers are the customers of employees, and that is how I judge employer-employee relations.
Scientists are starting to scare me. Many scientists find funding through government or taxpayer-funded programs and grants. Are we dealing with the same quality of people who review and allow frivolous patents and lawsuits to be enforced? Will we start seeing more scientists under review for doing what we all do in our jobs -- try and find ways to increase our pay while keeping our work the same (or lower).
In the past there was peer review, but when we involve public funds, I fear what I saw in my consulting business: many consultants bidding on public jobs in a "boat race" -- 5 or 6 state-licensed consultants allowing each other to win a bid in a round robin fashion. I don't do any state jobs because of the collusion I saw in my industries.
When I decry public funding of science, I'm blasted because people say that the free market won't pay for certain research. Now I see a more evil side of it -- and I fear that we'll see more investigations like this if I'm right. What can we do to combat humanity's deep need for self preservation in a scientist having the same human drives, especially when it is funded straight out of our pocket involuntarily?
I consult with financial broker dealers and they are often required to record "order line" phone conversations. We sell numerous "digital direct" recording packages for these clients. Some of them feed the information (via IP) to a central clearinghouse that stores and even analyzes orders. Sort of scary.
Makes me wonder why so many people in college continue to get "marketing" degrees and then graduate knowing only what was strong in the 90s. I wonder how many marketing degrees today the future (theories and realities) of business marketing.
Thus, with "Advertising 2.0", we're in the exact same spot we are now, except our privacy has been sold to whoever wants to pay.
I completely agree with the beginning, and disagree with the end result. In time, I believe we'll see a combination of cable+tivo+akimbo+itunes offering for everyone in every situation: TV at home, cell phone, laptop on the go, etc.
If you want free content, you'll have to give up your privacy -- that is how you pay for it. You don't have the time to tell advertisers who you are so they can pay for your content, so you'll let another viewer aggregator do it for you. Thank God for Google.
If you want to pay for content, I believe that option will increase with time. Right now, iTunes is "free" because they have no infrastructure for you to support, unlike the cable and Satellite companies. People moan about paying $100 a month, but do you know how much those HD-DVRs and "free" satellite dishs cost? Someone's paying for that infrastructure. Taking all that into account, free channels on cable are still truly free. Yet you'll be able to pay for them in the future, a la carte. If you don't want to pay a la carte, give up your private information for free content.
The choice will be ours, and Google will be part of the movement to bring in this new era where the end user has more control, not less.
I personally don't care who knows who I am calling -- in fact I openly release my cell phone data to all my customers as I bill them by the minute when they call me (plus they can see who else calls me which helps when someone says I might have overcharged them).
My bigger concern has always been who could have the content of any calls recorded. I know the phone companies "don't" and I doubt government has any concern for what I talk about, but there is proprietary information we all discuss on the phone (nothing illegal, just ideas and other information I'd rather not share). Digital cell transmissions are already nicely compressed for transmission and those data streams are just perfect to stick on a huge hard drive and use in the future.
I have no political aspirations, so I guess my information would be totally useless in order to try to hurt me publicly, but for those who do think about the future -- is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?
Even worse, I just had a pot of strong coffee. Warning to coffee addicts: stay away from posting on slashdot after an entire 12 cup pot of coffee :)
I was working on some scotch theory with a very good friend about 6 months ago -- we were both in a very short lived video production business ages ago. I had recently considered adapting Google to television in a very unique way and wanted his input.
My thought was to take television's closed captioning text and IMDB show data and run it through Google's "I'm feeling lucky" API in real time. Eventually you could have really cool "pop up" information program running that can give you pop up information correlated to what is happening on screen. Software running on a Media Center PC (or a Tivo?) could give you real time information on actors and what they're talking about. Imagine watching ER, wondering about a disease or illness they're talking about, and instantly having that information pop up without anything but a button click (if even that). Remember VH1's Pop Up Video?
As the conversation moved forward, we realized the real power of bringing Google to TV is advertising -- bringing ads to the web (more than just a GIF or SWF) and bringing web ads to the television -- contextual of course. Hours passed and the ideas that moved through the conversation seemed revolutionary (until we realized that Brin is a billionaire and we, well, aren't). Google certainly has the most powerful contextual algorithms in the market (although Yahoo is quickly catching up). Google's use of gmail and possibly AOL e-mails and IMs to aggregate even MORE user data (not just contextually but also within a physical region) will definitely give them more specific insight into a user's needs based on more than just what they browse.
The number one complaint I hear on why people use Tivo (or ThePirateBay as it seems to be lately) is that advertising sucks -- it is unimportant, too generalized and the same thing over and over. During our conversation half a year ago I made mention of how I'd love to see old commercials for current products -- the old Coke commercials are priceless (and comical) and there is NO reason why Google couldn't offer to bring back this and more. Instead of the same 40 ads in rotation, they have over 60 years or so of advertising they could bring back (some pre-TV movie theatre advertising) and stick in rotation, especially if the company is more logo-centric than actual product-minded.
I just signed on to Akimbo (need to set it up on my MCE box) and wonder how long it will be before these guys connect with Google. Tivo, Akimbo and MCE are programmable set top boxes just waiting to be utilized by Google. As even video game systems become more of a set-top programming station rather than a specific use peripheral, Google has an opportunity to really jump on everyone's hardware rather than design and sell their own. "Designed for Google!" could be the new sticker on every consumer device.
The conversation finished up (as far as I remember, I wish I recorded these nights of single malt drinking!) with us discussing things that Google might not even have put much weight in at the time -- SMS, VoIP, WAP searches and other data to be aggregated and utilized. If Google offers free VoIP, what prevents them from anonymously and generically aggregating your phone call keywords? If you're using Google SMS searches from your GPS-enabled phone, what prevents them from offering advertising to a local business (other than the one you're searching for). Taking all that information into their data centers and using their complex heuristic analysis gives them an awesome amount of information that advertisers could only have dreamed of 10 years ago. Being able to match price to need is also a big deal -- imagine what car dealers would offer Google for a local car buyer searching for a deal or how Google could knock around the realty market? Not exactly topical in terms of television advertising, maybe, but Google + Advertising can change how we define "on demand programming" nonetheless. Tomorrow's TV could just be today's BitTorrent with the Go
I agree that there seems to be a market for this mouse. Since I use 2 laptops, 2 PDAs and 3 cell phones (off and on, not all at the exact same time!) as well as some other portable devices (GPS, etc), this mouse isn't for me. I like the form factor and the idea behind it, but I'm happy with my "other" bluetooth standard sized mouse. I just wish it had a standard charging port :)
While I think this is definitely an idea with cool-factor, I'm not sure I'd ever use it. I seriously carry dozens of devices in a month of use that all use different charging mechanisms, and this one is probably the one I'd be the least likely to use.
What I would really like to see is a more standard charging mechanism. The micro-USB (mini-USB?) port is a great start, but I don't think laptops could charge well over a USB port. I see Motorola cell phones with the port (including my wife's) but my Samsung t809 has a proprietary jack. Most new laptops I use now have a DC port insteed of an AC port (external power supply) which is a good start, but they're always different amperage and voltage requirements.
How about a standard appearing soon? Does anyone else get frustrated carrying around 9 chargers for trips? My most powerful charger is a 2A 6V charger for an older PDA -- works fine, takes up little room, works internationally. 2A and 6V should be enough for anything, why bother with all the standards?
I'm guessing the retail industry pushes for the different jacks -- one more adapter to sell the customer for a huge markup. Maybe the move to Amazon and eBay buying will let the manufacturers find a bigger profit on their primary device sales by standardizing on a charging jack -- mini USB, 6V DC plug, whatever.
The Hunt brothers fiasco was due entirely to people looking at silver as an investment, not as a store of wealth. They didn't corner the market, they cornered the investors and fooled them into chasing the next Big Thing. This is not what I do -- I research heavily the production manipulations, the central bank manipulations, the mining manipulations, the jeweler manipulations and the investor manipulations and figure out what I believe is a fair price based on the need and use of a metal.
For me, metal pricing in the short run IS screwed up when it is a commodity investment, but it always corrects itself. The same is true with stocks, but stocks are rarely based on actually owning anything. Stocks rarely pay dividends and stocks rarely give you real control over what you are buying. Gold and silver are strong for me as I physically own them -- I don't buy paper. The Hunt brothers sold people paper, and that is part of the problem with today's gold market -- too many paper shares are trading hands again, but I blog about this daily when I see short term manipulations ahead (as I do now).
I would never have bought all my gold in a 1 week period. I buy it as I need money, cost dollar averaging my worth over time. Anyone who jumps into anything all at once is destined to be doomed.
Some of my funds did 40+% last year.
That's great. Considering the annual rate of currency devaluation by all the central banks, 40% is a great profit. Hope it stays that way, especially with fuel and energy costs skyrocketing again.
Which is money in the bank cause when my son gets sick I take him to the hospital without thinking twice. $20 copay? Who cares.
It is thinking like this that makes medical bills so high and insurance premiums so high. Insurance was meant for emeregencies, not to pay your doctor's bills for basic illnesses. My insurance premiums are super low because I never file a claim or use a copay or take "advantage" of prescription drug benefits. I pay cash, up front, before service, and get a huge discount from all my doctors and dentists. You pay a $20 copay, the insurance company pays $150, eventually. I pay $50 cash up front and don't worry about high premiums. If I should have a real emergency (thousands and thousands of dollars) I'll file a claim.
Gold is a poor investment, but then again you already have a few slashbots telling you that. Anything more than a couple percent in gold is just too much.
Gold is NOT an investment. If gold goes up against the dollar, it means that the dollar is going down. I'd like to see gold stabilize so I know my savings is solid. For a return, I'd invest locally as I previously said, and have full control of the business.
If you're interested in a long term bet, I'll bet you 2 ounces of gold that your stocks in 5 years have declined majorly and your retirement programs will fall so hard you'll have to work an extra 15-20 years. 2 ounces of gold -- want to risk it? I made the same bet 5 years ago and won big, I'll be happy to continue to make this bet every 5 years as the next run of "suckers" puts their money into the new big stock and believes they'll be millionaires in 20 years. They will be, but a millionaire inflated dollars will be worth a quarter of its previous value.
Whoops! You're right. This makes my point even MORE important.
If I told you I could save you 50 cents a year, but I just need you to spend a few hours calling your representative, would you? Probably not.
If I told you I could earn you US$150,000,000 a year and all you need to do is give about 40% of that back to lobbyists, would you?
This perspective is really important when you realize that it isn't the money that is corrupt, it is the Congress that is abusing the Constitutionally limited powers they're supposed to have.
Gold is a lousy investment.
Just FYI, gold is not an investment. Gold is a store of wealth, a currency, a money. I would never tell you to buy dollars as an investment, why would you think I meant gold is an investment? Gold is merely the same thing as a bank, except it isn't manipulated like the banking cartels are, and it isn't controlled by fiat as the dollar is.
Don't let the receant upswing fool you, unless this defies history, it's only temporary.
Historically, gold as been the only store of wealth that has survived every empire, every currency. Gold has held its value for hundreds of years (thousands possibly). When gold had swings was usually when gold was found in mass quantity (5 times in all of history) and when governments manipulated gold (1913, 1931, and 1974). Since 1974, gold has felt some central bank manipulations (the Bank of England was a big one). As gold has entered the hands of private holders, central banks are less likely to manipulate it. Nonetheless, my blog covers the daily manipulations by mines, central banks and investment houses.
I feel gold has an equilibrium against the dollar of between US$1200 and US$1800 right now. As Greenspan (and soon Bernanke) continues to inflate the dollar, this value will go up. It won't go up (and may temporarily go down with further profit taking) without faith in the dollar collapsing -- which may never happen.
It flucuates up and down, of course, it's been as low as $264 and as high as $900, but only temporarily. Actually, if you discount the peak in 1980 it's never gone for above $650 which was in 1981
All correct. The US$264 minimum happened when two central banks dumped gold -- a great increase in supply will always show a great decrease in price. The US$900 price swing was due to investor stupidity, IMO. Just like the stock market sees bubbles created by excess dollars chasing stocks stupidly, the peak was not meant to be at that time. I do believe that we'll see gold hit US$600 this year, but I also believe we'll see it drop to the upper US$460s late February or early March. I am really bugged that investors are buying gold, disturbing the proper supply and demand as we'd see from industrial uses and the monetizing of gold.
Had you bought in 1985, your gold would be worth maybe $100 more per ounce in absolute terms, but in relitive dollars it'd be worth less due to inflation.
Bingo. Gold is a store of wealth. Inflation only happens because of currency counterfeiting done (legally) by central banks. In a free market with an open currency standard (anything is currency, basically), you see deflation over time. More people = more productivity = more products = lower prices. Houses fall apart, prices fall. Cars fall apart, prices fall. Except in rare circumstances (such as limited resources, of which the earth has seen few true shortages), prices fall. Involve a central bank counterfeiting our money weekly, and you see prices rise against the fiat currency.
It's a fairly stable medium, in that it's unlikely to ever truly crash and devalue totally, but you can find things nearly as certian that will at least keep up with inflation.
An inflation created by those who control the dollar.
GOLD IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. It is a safe version of the bank. To invest, I buy or invest in local businesses (including my own). I make a great return on my investment. When I have extra money, I buy gold and silver, or I increase the amount of land I own (except where the land is overvalued). If the housing bubble bursts, I'll purchase a home when I see a stable pricing market. I will never buy big houses when housing prices are on a rise.
Considering the Constitution provides for a tiny central government (mostly to make sure that the states don't trample on the freedoms we're all born with, and to provide for a central defense but only if the country is attacked). Lincoln the Tyrant was the first of 3 traitors who worked very hard to turn the country into a mockery of freedom.
While I am anti-State entirely, I can definitely agree that a coalition of independent states that compete with one another would be far better than what we're living under now.