I entirely agree with you, thus my caveat "the first world"...curiously, I couldn't think of a single phrase that would encompass the bulk of Europe, Canada, US, Japan, Australia anymore?
But yes, you're absolutely right - and that's my point. I don't believe it's coincidental that there IS a 'bubble' of relative comfort on this planet (although I'd also say the bubble metaphor is sadly apt given its likelihood to endure) and a Pax Americana enforced by the most capable and advance military in history.
In my very Toynbeean view of human history, 'civilization' are short spans of time where a single power - be it Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, France, Great Britain, or the US - is able to push back the chaos and provide a bubble of stability, safety, and security to its peoples for several generations until they inevitably collapse again. The essence of what is able to make such a thing happen is military power, and thus my disparaging reply to the OP.
What part of "...they believe flaws in system architecture, not traffic alone, contribute to the problems...." is unclear?
Remember, ALL of this effort is on behalf of less than 10% of the population who allegedly didn't have healthcare - it was stated as "30 million" during the Obamacare debate.
(Setting aside the inclusion of foreign nationals, etc that were used to inflate that number in the first place...)
"We need to remind "them" that we didn't give them a monopoly on protecting us and we certainly didn't abdicate our own right of self protection and preservation."
Why do you think that they want to whittle down the 2nd Amendment to nothing?
And why do you think the Founders felt it so important it was the SECOND Amendment put to the Constitution?
"...even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support..."
Whatever unicorns & rainbows legislation against current recovery methods will either be - obsolesced by technology which will allow recovery without using those methods, or - overturned by a petro-starving public when the prices get high enough.
Difficult-to-recover petro resources are never too far away; more accurately they're just banked for future generations to reach.
I find your moralism absurd and completely naive, albeit disappointingly common in the Western world.
First, it's ENTIRELY too easy - from your presumably perfectly safe environment - too pooh-pooh disparagingly the necessity of military technology. How do you think we GOT to a situation in which (for most of us in the first world anyway) most of us can assume correctly that our entire lives will be spent peacefully in blissful ignorance of the consequences of war across our homes, our families, and our lives? How do you think we got to this point? The planet has never lacked strongmen who would cheerfully take what they want and impose their will on others. The only thing that's stopped such people (eventually) is force. Much of sub-Saharan Africa is a basket case today because the decent people there lack the ability to remove (and keep out) the thugs and strongmen that have fought their own way to the top.
In that sense, your particularist view is actually borderline immoral.
Secondly, you seem to ignore the overwhelming benefits that we have gained from technologies developed originally for military purposes: GPS, satellite communication, rocketry itself, not to mention the general advances in medicine, materials, etc that have all stemmed from military funding and need.
Finally, to suggest that conscientious people "wouldn't work on such things" is again, the sort of view that could only come from a surreal worldview formed in a sort of coddled, safe cocoon. Do you think that refusing to work on such machines is going to somehow make war "go away"? I wonder if the the next time a unit needs 150kg of food and water brought through enemy fields of fire (thus needing at least a half dozen men or trips) they would appreciate the subtlety of your philosophical views: "Gee, I'm glad I get to run through gunfire a half dozen times because someone was 'too conscientious' to work on a robot to do this for me!"
You invited disagreement, so here it is: I find your "war machine bad" views absurdly precious, simplistic, and rather childish.
There have been several spending bills passed to the Senate that would keep the government running. If keeping the country running was the priority, the Senate could pass any of them in 5 minutes.
If keeping the ENTIRE COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT shut down to protect a piece of legislation that was rammed through during a brief mono-party majority (which was then ejected at the next electoin), then by all means, keep the government shuttered.
To put it as simply as possible for some people: - President Obama was legally elected; his platform was broadly leftish. It is unsurprising that he pushed for a universalized health care. He is pursuing the policies that he was elected to pursue. - The House was legally elected. As a Republican majority, their platform was broadly rightish. They too are pursuing the policies that they were elected to pursue, in opposition to the President.
The constitutional role of Congress is to control the purse-strings. They don't make policy, they only fund or de-fund it. The House legally initiates spending bills for confirmation by the Senate, and then signing by the President. Their ONLY control is to fund, or de-fund.
Setting aside for the moment the idiocy of a government (both parties) that continues to spend far, far beyond its means, this is how government works. To suggest (as is being broadly painted) that the Republicans are being intransigent is nonsense; it's equally intransigent for Democrats to refuse to pass any bill without funding for Obamacare.
To suggest that "Obamacare is the law, of course they have to fund it" is nonsensical and shows an ignorance about how the US gov't works; by that logic, NO program would ever die. (Which is pretty nearly reality, I admit - the Tennessee Valley Electrification Authority still exists nearly 100 years after the TV was 99.9% electrified....). Obamacare WAS passed legally...then in the next election the public ejected that majority and put in another. Even if you don't understand that message, Congress did.
The president getting Obamacare passed was pursuing his policies. Congress refusing to fund it is pursuing their policies.
If you don't like it, fine; don't vote for them in the next cycle. But don't throw around words like unconstitutional unless you know what they mean.
"Closing" the WW2 memorial? It's an OPEN AIR MONUMENT. I've been there several times and never seen a park service employee. But simply stopping trash pickup or whatever wouldn't "make a statement about how bad those dirty Republicans are."
Closing Mount Vernon? IT'S NOT EVEN GOVERNMENT OWNED - it's privately owned. They share parking space with the NPS, but again, not serviced by staff anyway.
Closing WW2 Cemeteries in Europe? Seriously?
But the chattering masses suck it up because it's easier than accepting that they're being manipulated on such a grand scale, and the news media cheerfully bleats it everywhere.
I desperately love science and space exploration. I find the lack of funding for such an almost-criminal neglect of our longest-term future.
HOWEVER....
At some point, we simply can't afford everything we want.
The US has been overspending for what, 55 years? We are the wealthiest country ever in history, yet we cannot pay for everything we want to have. We are now $16 TRILLION in debt.
This is NOT a partisan issue - both parties cheerfully castigate the other for spending, while pouring money at their special interests whenever they have the chance. Sadly, the response to the debt HAS become partisan, thus nothing ever gets fixed.
Democrats' response to the debt has sadly been "what me worry? - our bonds are still the highest-rated in the world, so clearly it doesn't have much of an impact, and there are many more important, immediate things we need to spend money on." Republicans' response to the debt is to demand fiscal responsibility, but in a hypocritical way...when the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency, there was no contraction, no slowdown in government spending either.
At some point, some grownup should step in and insist that yes, it IS an issue. No, it doesn't have to be done in a way that brings our country to a screeching halt, either. (I've heard but don't know enough to know if it's true that simply freezing federal spending without automatic growth numbers would mean that our budget - even as badly whacked as it is - would be balanced in 6 years.)
But sadly, if you were $300,000 in debt, verging on unable to pay your loans and food and carpayments...you might not have the spare $$ to buy a telescope to look at the stars, either. Not today, anyway.
It's an interesting challenge, and forces architectural 'entrpreneurs' to think through some of the relevant issues.
However....I'd guess that the best that will come from this is a few decent ideas that *may* make things a little bit better. I hope so anyway.
For example: it's a market fact that people are willing to spend very little $ on pure safety features. Witness the great swathes of country where a basement or even simply storm cellar would radically increase the chances of tornado survival....and yet people still don't use them. A storm cellar is a TRIVIAL cost; with a backhoe and some 4x4's or larger timbers, one could be built in a couple of hours. With a couple of strong backs and shovels, a couple of weekends (digging sucks).
Of course, the idea being out there that there is a "tornado proof home" has a couple of drawbacks; most certainly these homes are carefully specc'd and designed....meaning an unscrupulous developer could build homes that 'look a lot like them', sell them as 'tornado-resistant' but in fact using substandard parts that make them even more lethal. Further, there's always the 'false sense of security' problem: instead of sensibly taking cover when timely warning is received, an owner of such a house is likely to rationalize "Ah, my house is tornado proof, I'll just stand out here taking youtube video until the last second!"
Finally, the fact is that almost nothing above ground is tornado proof. At best, you're buying yourself some percentages against small and medium tornado activity...which for a given house, in reality, is a vanishingly unlikely occurrence even in tornado ally.
Congress is not a parliament. It never was structured to be so.
But my point isn't twisting the argument, not at all. OP asserts that IF a body is meant to be representative of the public, the test of its "being representative" is demographic: simply, if a party is in the minority demographically across the US, it should hold a minority of seats. (Thus my statement about Republicans; they have ALWAYS been a minority party by population. By the OP's rule, they should NEVER control congress - which was largely true until 1990 or so.)
Of course, this is a nonsensically-narrow and exclusivist view. It disregards that the US is not a homogeneous whole - the US is a united collection of states, ipso facto there will be demarcation of representation by state lines. Further, the OP disregards voter participation numbers in the US. With 50% or less turnouts, it's easy for a motivated minority to sway an election over an apathetic or disgusted majority.
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem; I'd prefer a simple algorithm for determining districts* but there is no way such any new measure wouldn't be gamed by both sides, either. Gerrymandering - and requiring re-writing regularly - is probably the best possible compromise. *mine, for example would be one of two: either something keyed on a spot on the front steps of each state's capital today, and expanding in square blocks clockwise and circumferentially until the population number per district is reached. OR: Let each city council divide itself into neighborhoods that reflect the local realities. THEN let the population regularly vote on which neighborhood they are part of, mathematically subdividing/combining the neighborhoods to reach the population number.
Further, to suggest that since - according to the OP's measure - the House's representativeness (?) is flawed, the Senate MUST be more representative is silly. A single senator from California represents 19 million people. One from Wyoming represents just under 300,000. Seriously, this is "more representative"?
Convenient, in that you phrase 'spend like a drunken sailor heedless of the funds taken in' as "...continue federal funding as required."
Yes, it's the Republicans "fault" in the same sense that we all hate the guy who eventually says "um, don't we eventually have to pay for this?"....
Perhaps you could concede that the House - which is rather more democratically representative than the Senate (although in point of fact NEITHER is much of democratic institution any more) - ALSO has a mandate to pursue an agenda desired by their majority of constituents? Or is it only Democratic constituents that get a voice in Congress?
And this is precisely the sort of preciously absurd statement that would make me agree with you.
Why would you assume humans are special? We're naked apes that have learned some clever tricks with tools so we can build Lamborghinis and rocket ships.
Aside from that, our behaviors aren't demonstrably different. EVERY SPECIES THAT EVER EXISTED breeds to overpopulation, if possible. Every one will cheerfully out-compete and annihilate neighboring competitor or prey species without a second glance. Alligators don't politely consider the rarity of the creature they're about to eat. Lions cheerfully murder hyenas.
Personally, I find environmentalists the most ethnocentric people around: they assume that humans are somehow capable of being more than the animals we are, on the basis of no visible evidence.
1) share every piece of your life online - your friendships, your travel details, photos. 2) live an entirely-connected life for the convenience; use credit cards everywhere, let everything store your data for you "because it's easier than logging in each time", hell, even put your FINGERPRINTS in your phone 3) campaign for an all-encompassing nanny state that takes care of your every need, cradle to grave. If you stub your toe, Mommy USA will make sure you're ok. Make a stupid choice like have a baby at 16? No consequences, we'll make sure everything is fine for you. 4) Be totally surprised that 3 looks at 2 & 1.
I sincerely hope it's successful. Chris Roberts has a reasonably awesome game-CV behind him (Wing Commander, Strike Commander, etc). I believe he can do it.
However....
While the ongoing waterfall of funding comes in, one of the things Kickstarter projects to is 'stretch goals' - funding hits a big benchmark, some new thing will be added to the scope of the project.
That makes it hard right now to discern whether the 'stretch goals' are reasonable, or a sign of nascent project bloat. I'm reminded of many venture-cap-funded developments in the dotcom days, and projects that suffered not from a lack of funding, but a surfeit: there was no incentive on focusing on a reasonably-achievable project and do it right, to completion, full stop. Everytime a wave of new funding came in, projects' goals would be raised, a host of new features would be projected, and the only thing growing faster than the funding were the aspirations.
So for me the jury's out. I certainly won't wager, er 'invest' in the Kickstarter. If it comes, I'll certainly buy it. But I'm not just paying to see the Egress, either.
It's an "open" festival for the most "open minded" of counter culture crusaders...who end up forming their own elitist clique of snobbery, grossly ridiculing and excoriating newbs pretty much for "being new" and whose experimentalist outlook really pretty much ends up with smoking weed, not bathing, and convincing women that showing us their tits is "freedom of expression", not simply indulging adolescent male impulses.
First, it's not a "defense" or justification. My point is that "not being snooped-upon" is not a credible option in 2013. SOMEONE - usually multiple someones - will be snooping on everything you do. In many cases it's corporate, and in some it's government(s). Some people misunderstand, and compare what's happening vs some utopian ideal of what they think "should be". This is misleading; our choices aren't about the "best" alternative, they're about the least-worst.
Second, I entirely disagree with you: every one of my Chinese friends (granted, they're all studying in the US) says that they would MUCH rather have the US spying on them because there's at least a reasonable certainty that the US will work aggressively to PREVENT Chinese spying, and this is a pure good from their point of view. In fact, having grown up in China, they're far more blase about the concept of privacy in the first place, which (today) is probably a healthier viewpoint to have anyway.
Is anyone surprised? I see the ISS as only slightly less a political "creature of malignant compromises" than the abysmal shuttle was (and is a direct result of many of those, mind you). A "space station" at 230 miles is about as permanent as floating a buoy 25' from shore; it's practically disposable and should have been expected to be so.
Slashdot Mirror
I entirely agree with you, thus my caveat "the first world"...curiously, I couldn't think of a single phrase that would encompass the bulk of Europe, Canada, US, Japan, Australia anymore?
But yes, you're absolutely right - and that's my point. I don't believe it's coincidental that there IS a 'bubble' of relative comfort on this planet (although I'd also say the bubble metaphor is sadly apt given its likelihood to endure) and a Pax Americana enforced by the most capable and advance military in history.
In my very Toynbeean view of human history, 'civilization' are short spans of time where a single power - be it Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, France, Great Britain, or the US - is able to push back the chaos and provide a bubble of stability, safety, and security to its peoples for several generations until they inevitably collapse again. The essence of what is able to make such a thing happen is military power, and thus my disparaging reply to the OP.
What part of "...they believe flaws in system architecture, not traffic alone, contribute to the problems. ..." is unclear?
Remember, ALL of this effort is on behalf of less than 10% of the population who allegedly didn't have healthcare - it was stated as "30 million" during the Obamacare debate.
(Setting aside the inclusion of foreign nationals, etc that were used to inflate that number in the first place...)
"We need to remind "them" that we didn't give them a monopoly on protecting us and we certainly didn't abdicate our own right of self protection and preservation."
Why do you think that they want to whittle down the 2nd Amendment to nothing?
And why do you think the Founders felt it so important it was the SECOND Amendment put to the Constitution?
"...even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support..."
Whatever unicorns & rainbows legislation against current recovery methods will either be
- obsolesced by technology which will allow recovery without using those methods, or
- overturned by a petro-starving public when the prices get high enough.
Difficult-to-recover petro resources are never too far away; more accurately they're just banked for future generations to reach.
I do disagree.
I find your moralism absurd and completely naive, albeit disappointingly common in the Western world.
First, it's ENTIRELY too easy - from your presumably perfectly safe environment - too pooh-pooh disparagingly the necessity of military technology. How do you think we GOT to a situation in which (for most of us in the first world anyway) most of us can assume correctly that our entire lives will be spent peacefully in blissful ignorance of the consequences of war across our homes, our families, and our lives? How do you think we got to this point? The planet has never lacked strongmen who would cheerfully take what they want and impose their will on others. The only thing that's stopped such people (eventually) is force. Much of sub-Saharan Africa is a basket case today because the decent people there lack the ability to remove (and keep out) the thugs and strongmen that have fought their own way to the top.
In that sense, your particularist view is actually borderline immoral.
Secondly, you seem to ignore the overwhelming benefits that we have gained from technologies developed originally for military purposes: GPS, satellite communication, rocketry itself, not to mention the general advances in medicine, materials, etc that have all stemmed from military funding and need.
Finally, to suggest that conscientious people "wouldn't work on such things" is again, the sort of view that could only come from a surreal worldview formed in a sort of coddled, safe cocoon. Do you think that refusing to work on such machines is going to somehow make war "go away"? I wonder if the the next time a unit needs 150kg of food and water brought through enemy fields of fire (thus needing at least a half dozen men or trips) they would appreciate the subtlety of your philosophical views: "Gee, I'm glad I get to run through gunfire a half dozen times because someone was 'too conscientious' to work on a robot to do this for me!"
You invited disagreement, so here it is: I find your "war machine bad" views absurdly precious, simplistic, and rather childish.
I'm astonished at the amount of tinfoil expended over something of so little consequence, and which will be so easily proven (true or false) shortly?
Above all, one has to ask: WHY would anyone contrive a story about lost/found episodes of a tv show?
There have been several spending bills passed to the Senate that would keep the government running. If keeping the country running was the priority, the Senate could pass any of them in 5 minutes.
If keeping the ENTIRE COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT shut down to protect a piece of legislation that was rammed through during a brief mono-party majority (which was then ejected at the next electoin), then by all means, keep the government shuttered.
You're either naive or disingenuous.
To put it as simply as possible for some people:
- President Obama was legally elected; his platform was broadly leftish. It is unsurprising that he pushed for a universalized health care. He is pursuing the policies that he was elected to pursue.
- The House was legally elected. As a Republican majority, their platform was broadly rightish. They too are pursuing the policies that they were elected to pursue, in opposition to the President.
The constitutional role of Congress is to control the purse-strings. They don't make policy, they only fund or de-fund it. The House legally initiates spending bills for confirmation by the Senate, and then signing by the President. Their ONLY control is to fund, or de-fund.
Setting aside for the moment the idiocy of a government (both parties) that continues to spend far, far beyond its means, this is how government works. To suggest (as is being broadly painted) that the Republicans are being intransigent is nonsense; it's equally intransigent for Democrats to refuse to pass any bill without funding for Obamacare.
To suggest that "Obamacare is the law, of course they have to fund it" is nonsensical and shows an ignorance about how the US gov't works; by that logic, NO program would ever die. (Which is pretty nearly reality, I admit - the Tennessee Valley Electrification Authority still exists nearly 100 years after the TV was 99.9% electrified....). Obamacare WAS passed legally...then in the next election the public ejected that majority and put in another. Even if you don't understand that message, Congress did.
The president getting Obamacare passed was pursuing his policies.
Congress refusing to fund it is pursuing their policies.
If you don't like it, fine; don't vote for them in the next cycle. But don't throw around words like unconstitutional unless you know what they mean.
It's government THEATER.
"Closing" the WW2 memorial? It's an OPEN AIR MONUMENT. I've been there several times and never seen a park service employee. But simply stopping trash pickup or whatever wouldn't "make a statement about how bad those dirty Republicans are."
Closing Mount Vernon? IT'S NOT EVEN GOVERNMENT OWNED - it's privately owned. They share parking space with the NPS, but again, not serviced by staff anyway.
Closing WW2 Cemeteries in Europe? Seriously?
But the chattering masses suck it up because it's easier than accepting that they're being manipulated on such a grand scale, and the news media cheerfully bleats it everywhere.
I desperately love science and space exploration. I find the lack of funding for such an almost-criminal neglect of our longest-term future.
HOWEVER....
At some point, we simply can't afford everything we want.
The US has been overspending for what, 55 years? We are the wealthiest country ever in history, yet we cannot pay for everything we want to have. We are now $16 TRILLION in debt.
This is NOT a partisan issue - both parties cheerfully castigate the other for spending, while pouring money at their special interests whenever they have the chance. Sadly, the response to the debt HAS become partisan, thus nothing ever gets fixed.
Democrats' response to the debt has sadly been "what me worry? - our bonds are still the highest-rated in the world, so clearly it doesn't have much of an impact, and there are many more important, immediate things we need to spend money on."
Republicans' response to the debt is to demand fiscal responsibility, but in a hypocritical way...when the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency, there was no contraction, no slowdown in government spending either.
At some point, some grownup should step in and insist that yes, it IS an issue. No, it doesn't have to be done in a way that brings our country to a screeching halt, either. (I've heard but don't know enough to know if it's true that simply freezing federal spending without automatic growth numbers would mean that our budget - even as badly whacked as it is - would be balanced in 6 years.)
But sadly, if you were $300,000 in debt, verging on unable to pay your loans and food and carpayments...you might not have the spare $$ to buy a telescope to look at the stars, either. Not today, anyway.
It's an interesting challenge, and forces architectural 'entrpreneurs' to think through some of the relevant issues.
However....I'd guess that the best that will come from this is a few decent ideas that *may* make things a little bit better. I hope so anyway.
For example: it's a market fact that people are willing to spend very little $ on pure safety features. Witness the great swathes of country where a basement or even simply storm cellar would radically increase the chances of tornado survival....and yet people still don't use them. A storm cellar is a TRIVIAL cost; with a backhoe and some 4x4's or larger timbers, one could be built in a couple of hours. With a couple of strong backs and shovels, a couple of weekends (digging sucks).
Of course, the idea being out there that there is a "tornado proof home" has a couple of drawbacks; most certainly these homes are carefully specc'd and designed....meaning an unscrupulous developer could build homes that 'look a lot like them', sell them as 'tornado-resistant' but in fact using substandard parts that make them even more lethal. Further, there's always the 'false sense of security' problem: instead of sensibly taking cover when timely warning is received, an owner of such a house is likely to rationalize "Ah, my house is tornado proof, I'll just stand out here taking youtube video until the last second!"
Finally, the fact is that almost nothing above ground is tornado proof. At best, you're buying yourself some percentages against small and medium tornado activity...which for a given house, in reality, is a vanishingly unlikely occurrence even in tornado ally.
I rather doubt our congresspeople (of either party) can spell "future generations", much less consider it when planning their next campaign.
Congress is not a parliament. It never was structured to be so.
But my point isn't twisting the argument, not at all.
OP asserts that IF a body is meant to be representative of the public, the test of its "being representative" is demographic: simply, if a party is in the minority demographically across the US, it should hold a minority of seats.
(Thus my statement about Republicans; they have ALWAYS been a minority party by population. By the OP's rule, they should NEVER control congress - which was largely true until 1990 or so.)
Of course, this is a nonsensically-narrow and exclusivist view. It disregards that the US is not a homogeneous whole - the US is a united collection of states, ipso facto there will be demarcation of representation by state lines. Further, the OP disregards voter participation numbers in the US. With 50% or less turnouts, it's easy for a motivated minority to sway an election over an apathetic or disgusted majority.
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem; I'd prefer a simple algorithm for determining districts* but there is no way such any new measure wouldn't be gamed by both sides, either. Gerrymandering - and requiring re-writing regularly - is probably the best possible compromise.
*mine, for example would be one of two: either something keyed on a spot on the front steps of each state's capital today, and expanding in square blocks clockwise and circumferentially until the population number per district is reached. OR: Let each city council divide itself into neighborhoods that reflect the local realities. THEN let the population regularly vote on which neighborhood they are part of, mathematically subdividing/combining the neighborhoods to reach the population number.
Further, to suggest that since - according to the OP's measure - the House's representativeness (?) is flawed, the Senate MUST be more representative is silly. A single senator from California represents 19 million people. One from Wyoming represents just under 300,000. Seriously, this is "more representative"?
One's not (now) compelled by law to own an iphone. Just sayin'.
By your logic, then, minority parties (as the Republicans have been ever since they were formed to stop slavery) should never win, anywhere? Really?
Convenient, in that you phrase 'spend like a drunken sailor heedless of the funds taken in' as "...continue federal funding as required."
Yes, it's the Republicans "fault" in the same sense that we all hate the guy who eventually says "um, don't we eventually have to pay for this?"....
Perhaps you could concede that the House - which is rather more democratically representative than the Senate (although in point of fact NEITHER is much of democratic institution any more) - ALSO has a mandate to pursue an agenda desired by their majority of constituents? Or is it only Democratic constituents that get a voice in Congress?
And this is precisely the sort of preciously absurd statement that would make me agree with you.
Why would you assume humans are special? We're naked apes that have learned some clever tricks with tools so we can build Lamborghinis and rocket ships.
Aside from that, our behaviors aren't demonstrably different. EVERY SPECIES THAT EVER EXISTED breeds to overpopulation, if possible. Every one will cheerfully out-compete and annihilate neighboring competitor or prey species without a second glance. Alligators don't politely consider the rarity of the creature they're about to eat. Lions cheerfully murder hyenas.
Personally, I find environmentalists the most ethnocentric people around: they assume that humans are somehow capable of being more than the animals we are, on the basis of no visible evidence.
I mean really:
1) share every piece of your life online - your friendships, your travel details, photos.
2) live an entirely-connected life for the convenience; use credit cards everywhere, let everything store your data for you "because it's easier than logging in each time", hell, even put your FINGERPRINTS in your phone
3) campaign for an all-encompassing nanny state that takes care of your every need, cradle to grave. If you stub your toe, Mommy USA will make sure you're ok. Make a stupid choice like have a baby at 16? No consequences, we'll make sure everything is fine for you.
4) Be totally surprised that 3 looks at 2 & 1.
Unbelievable, people. Really.
Maybe someone should talk to China finally?
...that Mr Gates really didn't understand engineering, and the danger of having "reboot the whole machine" on one, easily-accidentally-struck key.
I sincerely hope it's successful. Chris Roberts has a reasonably awesome game-CV behind him (Wing Commander, Strike Commander, etc). I believe he can do it.
However....
While the ongoing waterfall of funding comes in, one of the things Kickstarter projects to is 'stretch goals' - funding hits a big benchmark, some new thing will be added to the scope of the project.
That makes it hard right now to discern whether the 'stretch goals' are reasonable, or a sign of nascent project bloat. I'm reminded of many venture-cap-funded developments in the dotcom days, and projects that suffered not from a lack of funding, but a surfeit: there was no incentive on focusing on a reasonably-achievable project and do it right, to completion, full stop. Everytime a wave of new funding came in, projects' goals would be raised, a host of new features would be projected, and the only thing growing faster than the funding were the aspirations.
So for me the jury's out. I certainly won't wager, er 'invest' in the Kickstarter. If it comes, I'll certainly buy it. But I'm not just paying to see the Egress, either.
One million percent agree.
It's an "open" festival for the most "open minded" of counter culture crusaders...who end up forming their own elitist clique of snobbery, grossly ridiculing and excoriating newbs pretty much for "being new" and whose experimentalist outlook really pretty much ends up with smoking weed, not bathing, and convincing women that showing us their tits is "freedom of expression", not simply indulging adolescent male impulses.
First, it's not a "defense" or justification. My point is that "not being snooped-upon" is not a credible option in 2013. SOMEONE - usually multiple someones - will be snooping on everything you do. In many cases it's corporate, and in some it's government(s). Some people misunderstand, and compare what's happening vs some utopian ideal of what they think "should be". This is misleading; our choices aren't about the "best" alternative, they're about the least-worst.
Second, I entirely disagree with you: every one of my Chinese friends (granted, they're all studying in the US) says that they would MUCH rather have the US spying on them because there's at least a reasonable certainty that the US will work aggressively to PREVENT Chinese spying, and this is a pure good from their point of view. In fact, having grown up in China, they're far more blase about the concept of privacy in the first place, which (today) is probably a healthier viewpoint to have anyway.
Is anyone surprised? I see the ISS as only slightly less a political "creature of malignant compromises" than the abysmal shuttle was (and is a direct result of many of those, mind you). A "space station" at 230 miles is about as permanent as floating a buoy 25' from shore; it's practically disposable and should have been expected to be so.
Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?
Given the inherent malignity of state entities, which is the least-worst?