It's a bit Orwellian but while this is softer than radical censorship I think the collaborative effort of social media and Google could lead to a very potent form of incremental censorship. Once everything you say , link to or search for gets an automatic score for patriotic loyalty you get a strong effect of conformity where you avoid doing things which affect your (search rank, popularity)score or the score of the people you are linked to. It's incremental and deniable. The infrastructure behind it is justified with consensus cases of 'sheer evil' and it's gradually increased to cover more ground. If you think you got the wrong score you can maybe get it corrected with a lot of hassle and if you're willing to risk drawing attention to yourself. since hey, no system is perfect. It's complicated, you wouldn't understand''.
Maybe you watched the 'Wolf of Wall Street' or 'Wall Street' ? Gordon Gecko (or these days the heirs of Gordon Gecko) is not the problem with bankers, those are the few excesses. The problem is that the banking world is organized as a cutthroat competition where you have to be successful at the expense of everything else. A lot of these sharks can be quite ethical once they're out of their suits. That does not make them less damaging. The problem with banks is not that they are such bad people. We need drastic measures not because they're bad but because the neoliberal deregulated setup is lethal. Elisabeth Warren used to say very sensible things about that, though I'm not up to date on how she evolved.
I don't have to disagree but I certainly do.When an addictive substance or technology is developed you need to develop the insight and the tools to allow people to control it, independent of possible policy decisions. What you are saying is 'I don't have a clue so I'll dismiss it as emotional anti-tech'. If research shows that allowing yourself to be drawn into this or that technology leads to an inability to read a book or inability to just sit and think without visual or auditive stimuli, and the inability to care about that, then at least you can take it in account.
It's like with the banks. You've got these talented and nerdy characters that first work for a big bank, ripping off people in legal ways, and then when they've made a lot of money they purify themselves by going to work for an organisation which monitors the banking system. I don't know if I should condemn them, they're not less moral than other people, but they're certainly no moral guides.
I know exactly what I want to fix and you won't like it. It's this https://steemit.com/politics/@... and it will require firing an awful lot of people, and they're all at the top.
'they get favors' can not explain the degree of compliance. Modern media are businesses that follow their business interests. And that means they should get along with governments, advertizers, owners and they should not make themselves unpopular by associating themselves with things that are not cool or suspicious. They can make some room for courageous truthtelling , but only very carefully and people who suit the business model will make careers. People who are stubbornly pursuing truth will not make a career. They are troublemakers with a personality problem . At most they can bide their time for the occasional opportunity to squeeze something important through the filters. This MSNBC guy for instance, he'll go places: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Another MSNBC guy who is mentioned on here (Young Turks) had to go other places: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
It's remarkable how easy the transition was from fake news to anything that can be linked to Russia. As far as I can see fake news started off as stuff pulled out of thin air without any background, and presented as news. From there to 'competing narratives' is a big step. Now Russia Today is fullfilling a role Voice of America used to play: give a voice to dissidents that don't get a voice in their own country. In that respect for an eastern european VoA was sometimes the best source of information available. I'm thinking Russia Today, just pursuing its own interest the way VoA is, is starting to fullfill the same role. At least in principle because it's not that many people watch it. It's giving room to the smartest dissident voices. So is effectively happening is that western commercial players are suppressing western dissident voices by associating them with Evil Russia. I think it is very effective. Soon enough people will stop linking to these dissident voices because it will affect their facebook reputation and the reputation of their friends. Google ads and search results will be tuned the same way, all softly dissuading people from discussing the 'wrong issues'.
Robert Parry just died. People like him are more relevant than ever.
That's why the future is not Orwellian. In Orwell's future it was always possible that someone might be watching you. In our automated/AI future you can be certain that you will be monitored everywhere and round the clock.
I suppose that is more an answer to 'what would you do' while I was talking about 'what would a lot of these people do' and if they're conservative and they know Clinton's warmongering then it's reasonable that a lot of people would gamble on Trump. I do think it's not an easy choice and your argument is reasonable. I'm more pessimistic in general I think. Obama in his interview talks about the Washington Playbook ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ma... ) and it indicates the militarism runs all through the system. It even runs so much through the system that the people I take seriously are absent from the mainstream. I think Clinton is a very bad case but she's predictable and competent and that has value in avoiding disasters. You hope she will step back from the abyss if it comes that far. And avoiding disasters is at the moment what bothers me most. I don't see how we're going to last to the end of the century like this.
I agree apart from 'Porsche vs non-Porsche'. If a manufacturer of electric cars wants the extra cost of superior handling he can buy the knowhow. I don't drive Porsche but people I trust say the latest Panamera Hybrid handles remarkably well for its weight. Not as well as the smaller Porsches and I should add, not as well as a Lotus at half the weight but it means a Tesla can be made to handle better than most people would ever want. At the moment a Tesla would be very weak at racing because its heat management is not up to it, but again, if they decide to invest in it there is no technical reason it wouldn't work. So concerning the performance the deficiences of electric are more of teh 'not yet' type.
But that is more or less the performance angle. Another angle is character, the way you have to adapt to the specific characteristics of the car. I like that a lot but I think that aspect will generally lose out. After all apart from status, character is a good reason pick a 911 when a Cayman handles better?
Nonsense. An engine or a program, you want to know how it works and you don't care if it's important. It doesn't mean you want to make your hands dirty! By God No!
From a different angle, I consider just about everything our press reports about our enemies (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria,...) as disastrous warmongering bullshit. But it's not necessarily wrong.
Selectively discussing truth is a major issue. Take the most reputable newspapers following their own rules, and they'll report anything officials say, anonymous or not, without calling it out for a lie because that would be bias and a journalist has to be neutral and objective. In effect you get trusted sources they just pass on with the result that everyone believes them, and untrusted sources where suddenly the journalist becomes very critical, believes nothing , points out untruth. Journalism effectively becomes a propaganda channel for these trusted sources. I'm talking about NYTimes, Wapo, LaTimes here. In a way one can say that with Trump journalists are doing their job for once, but very often they don't. You'd think they 'd hold up the government to scrutiny, but that doesn't happen if the government is classified as 'trusted'.
The key to understanding for me was that when compression is too high the engine does not knock on every cycle. It depends on the circumstances. temperature of the walls, local concentration differences, how the combustion spreads. So they increase control over the combustion and keep it under the knock threshold.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bit Orwellian but while this is softer than radical censorship I think the collaborative effort of social media and Google could lead to a very potent form of incremental censorship. Once everything you say , link to or search for gets an automatic score for patriotic loyalty you get a strong effect of conformity where you avoid doing things which affect your (search rank, popularity)score or the score of the people you are linked to. It's incremental and deniable. The infrastructure behind it is justified with consensus cases of 'sheer evil' and it's gradually increased to cover more ground. If you think you got the wrong score you can maybe get it corrected with a lot of hassle and if you're willing to risk drawing attention to yourself. since hey, no system is perfect. It's complicated, you wouldn't understand''.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt: "We're not arguing for censorship, we're arguing just take it off the page. Put it somewhere else. Make it harder to find."
I have that feeling with every CAPTCHA. They're becoming so difficult I need a bot to resolve them.
I don't understand that sentence.
Maybe you watched the 'Wolf of Wall Street' or 'Wall Street' ? Gordon Gecko (or these days the heirs of Gordon Gecko) is not the problem with bankers, those are the few excesses. The problem is that the banking world is organized as a cutthroat competition where you have to be successful at the expense of everything else. A lot of these sharks can be quite ethical once they're out of their suits. That does not make them less damaging.
The problem with banks is not that they are such bad people. We need drastic measures not because they're bad but because the neoliberal deregulated setup is lethal. Elisabeth Warren used to say very sensible things about that, though I'm not up to date on how she evolved.
A goal which can be tolerated as long as it cannot be achieved.
I don't have to disagree but I certainly do.When an addictive substance or technology is developed you need to develop the insight and the tools to allow people to control it, independent of possible policy decisions.
What you are saying is 'I don't have a clue so I'll dismiss it as emotional anti-tech'. If research shows that allowing yourself to be drawn into this or that technology leads to an inability to read a book or inability to just sit and think without visual or auditive stimuli, and the inability to care about that, then at least you can take it in account.
It's like with the banks. You've got these talented and nerdy characters that first work for a big bank, ripping off people in legal ways, and then when they've made a lot of money they purify themselves by going to work for an organisation which monitors the banking system. I don't know if I should condemn them, they're not less moral than other people, but they're certainly no moral guides.
I know exactly what I want to fix and you won't like it. It's this https://steemit.com/politics/@... and it will require firing an awful lot of people, and they're all at the top.
Why do you call it a police action. Sounds like the police treated that civilian as an enemy combatant.
I do expect a kind of general sloppiness in such circumstances
"The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out."
"Yeah well, Fuck that!"
Okay, apart from making everybody think for half an hour that they were about to die.
I like the pun in 'phony'
'they get favors' can not explain the degree of compliance. Modern media are businesses that follow their business interests. And that means they should get along with governments, advertizers, owners and they should not make themselves unpopular by associating themselves with things that are not cool or suspicious. They can make some room for courageous truthtelling , but only very carefully and people who suit the business model will make careers. People who are stubbornly pursuing truth will not make a career. They are troublemakers with a personality problem . At most they can bide their time for the occasional opportunity to squeeze something important through the filters.
This MSNBC guy for instance, he'll go places:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Another MSNBC guy who is mentioned on here (Young Turks) had to go other places:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Think how easy it is to make a bot that does this.
It's remarkable how easy the transition was from fake news to anything that can be linked to Russia.
As far as I can see fake news started off as stuff pulled out of thin air without any background, and presented as news. From there to 'competing narratives' is a big step. Now Russia Today is fullfilling a role Voice of America used to play: give a voice to dissidents that don't get a voice in their own country. In that respect for an eastern european VoA was sometimes the best source of information available. I'm thinking Russia Today, just pursuing its own interest the way VoA is, is starting to fullfill the same role. At least in principle because it's not that many people watch it. It's giving room to the smartest dissident voices. So is effectively happening is that western commercial players are suppressing western dissident voices by associating them with Evil Russia. I think it is very effective. Soon enough people will stop linking to these dissident voices because it will affect their facebook reputation and the reputation of their friends. Google ads and search results will be tuned the same way, all softly dissuading people from discussing the 'wrong issues'.
Robert Parry just died. People like him are more relevant than ever.
That's why the future is not Orwellian. In Orwell's future it was always possible that someone might be watching you. In our automated/AI future you can be certain that you will be monitored everywhere and round the clock.
I suppose that is more an answer to 'what would you do' while I was talking about 'what would a lot of these people do' and if they're conservative and they know Clinton's warmongering then it's reasonable that a lot of people would gamble on Trump.
I do think it's not an easy choice and your argument is reasonable. I'm more pessimistic in general I think. Obama in his interview talks about the Washington Playbook ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ma... ) and it indicates the militarism runs all through the system. It even runs so much through the system that the people I take seriously are absent from the mainstream.
I think Clinton is a very bad case but she's predictable and competent and that has value in avoiding disasters. You hope she will step back from the abyss if it comes that far. And avoiding disasters is at the moment what bothers me most. I don't see how we're going to last to the end of the century like this.
I agree apart from 'Porsche vs non-Porsche'. If a manufacturer of electric cars wants the extra cost of superior handling he can buy the knowhow. I don't drive Porsche but people I trust say the latest Panamera Hybrid handles remarkably well for its weight. Not as well as the smaller Porsches and I should add, not as well as a Lotus at half the weight but it means a Tesla can be made to handle better than most people would ever want. At the moment a Tesla would be very weak at racing because its heat management is not up to it, but again, if they decide to invest in it there is no technical reason it wouldn't work. So concerning the performance the deficiences of electric are more of teh 'not yet' type.
But that is more or less the performance angle. Another angle is character, the way you have to adapt to the specific characteristics of the car. I like that a lot but I think that aspect will generally lose out.
After all apart from status, character is a good reason pick a 911 when a Cayman handles better?
Nonsense. An engine or a program, you want to know how it works and you don't care if it's important. It doesn't mean you want to make your hands dirty! By God No!
Ah, but you know chartreuse from html! That's based on Chartreuse verte. There's a yellow variety as well.
https://www.chartreuse.fr/en/c...
From a different angle, I consider just about everything our press reports about our enemies (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, ...) as disastrous warmongering bullshit. But it's not necessarily wrong.
Selectively discussing truth is a major issue. Take the most reputable newspapers following their own rules, and they'll report anything officials say, anonymous or not, without calling it out for a lie because that would be bias and a journalist has to be neutral and objective. In effect you get trusted sources they just pass on with the result that everyone believes them, and untrusted sources where suddenly the journalist becomes very critical, believes nothing , points out untruth. Journalism effectively becomes a propaganda channel for these trusted sources. I'm talking about NYTimes, Wapo, LaTimes here. In a way one can say that with Trump journalists are doing their job for once, but very often they don't. You'd think they 'd hold up the government to scrutiny, but that doesn't happen if the government is classified as 'trusted'.
Given the deeper relationship between entropy and information your comment is not as nonsensical as you might think :)
The key to understanding for me was that when compression is too high the engine does not knock on every cycle. It depends on the circumstances. temperature of the walls, local concentration differences, how the combustion spreads. So they increase control over the combustion and keep it under the knock threshold.