I know people on slashdot LOVE to 'game' legalities in this sort of situation (let's do one about copying music without paying for it next!), but to suggest that people who accessed it did 'nothing wrong' you have a pretty fucked-up moral code.
I'll absolutely agree that the company putting it up unsecured was at fault for doing something staggeringly dumb.
But having to 'exploit' something, or 'bypass' things isn't the line by which I measure whether something is 'wrong' or not. Ethically, perhaps, but certainly not morally. Sometimes, things simply ARE wrong, and no amount of sophomoric hair-splitting really changes that.
It's unfortunate that today's society seems more concerned with what they can 'get away with' or how closely they can skate to the rules, than simply recognizing the difference between right and wrong.
If you think this 'double standard' is anything new, I'd love to hear you explain the essential difference between US's "patriots" in 1776 and any other anti-colonial "insurgents".
Every nation forever has interpreted things this way.
I hear that a lot from 'rebels' actually. I'm curious what you really mean?
Of course, from the examples I've witnessed, their 'slapdowns' are neither capricious nor arbitrary. Let's use the last four instances of 'authority being challenged' I've seen already this week: - no, you can't smoke weed in school. - no, you're not a precious snowflake, you have to follow the rules laid out for everyone - no, you have to have a parking pass because there are limited parking spaces. Even if you "really just need to park here for a second" - The school day is over at 3:00. We as the school are responsible for you until then, so no you can't just 'run across the highway to get a Red Bull"
I'll be the FIRST to agree with you that the 'no tolerance' rules are idiotic, and mainly crafted NOT for the welfare of the kids, but to protect administrations from having to make (and defend) judgement calls from schools of litigation-hungry lawyers. But that's not the SCHOOL's fault. Schools are empowered *exactly* to the degree that parents (through their school board) chose, over time.
Take our two school districts. In one, a teacher physically 'disarmed' a kid who was harming other students with their book (cracking them hard with the spine). That teacher was suspended with pay pending an investigation, because they put their hands on a kid. Another adjacent district, a kid made a particulary foul-mouthed comment to a teacher and she slapped him. His parents not only REFUSED to press charges, they forced the kid to apologize to the teacher. (That didn't stop one opportunistic parent from discussing suing the district for the 'emotional harm' done to their student for witnessing the encounter. That suit didn't go anywhere though.) Two districts, two entirely different approaches....all based on the parent response.
...or are Schneier, Stallman, et all just becoming a touch too precious and righteous lately?
This reminds me of the UCS talking all over the place in the 1980s against the US SDI program. You had a bunch of physicists with impressive academic credentials opining on geopolitical matters on which they are NO MORE QUALIFIED TO COMMENT than Alfred E Neumann.
Here's the example that I posited at that time (which earned me a "F" on that assignment for daring to make such an assertion): How would these individuals respond if Kissenger started making public pronouncements about the foolishness of IP6, or on the security of Windows OSs, or on the worthlessness of open-source software? Their response - and it would be ENTIRELY justified - would be "Kissenger knows fuck-all about these subjects, who cares what he says? Why are his comments even being reported?"
Well, Mr Schneier, let me point out that as far as geopolitics are concerned, (you) know fuck-all about these subjects, who cares what you say? Why are your comments even worth reporting?
As a structural engineer we all appreciate your insights.
However, "...calamity waiting to happen..." is pretty much what EVERYONE read when they saw "Chinese firm says they can build a skyscraper in 90 days."
I'm not sure who, voluntarily, would be the first (or the thousandth) person in that building.
That's pretty much been the raison d'etre of the UN since at least 1960 on any issue.
Power is a zero-sum thing. It is always in the interest of the powerLESS to subscribe to supranational organizations and to grant them more power, in order to Gulliverlike give them at least a small chance of control over things that that have no power over today.
The powerful, understanding this, manipulate the organizations such that the 'non-aligned' states work in their interest, chipping away the power of the hegemon.
Of course, we all recognize that at least the US and the West pay lip service attention to the UN and its posturings.
When we hear about such efforts 'through' the UN, one needs to ask oneself if the sponsoring power would promote this if they were sitting in the US's position. Generally the answer is no, spotlighting that the effort is simply a political/economic power grab, nothing more.
Remember, this is ONLY purporting to describe the difference between observed polling results and the final vote tallies.
I'd suggest that if we discard the hot-button issue of race, we'd find that generally there is almost always (at least) a single-digit difference between what people SAY they're going to vote for, and what they ACTUALLY vote for.
Otherwise, what's the point of a secret ballot? (Union members aren't entitled to comment on this.)
Further, I've noticed in my observation of local (MN) elections since 1984, a 4-6% difference in poll results vs real results, with poll results always skewed in favor of the Democrat. My interpretation is that a) liberals love to tell you how they voted and what they believe in; conservatives are far more reluctant to do so or to deliberately mislead a pollster b) we all agree that Liberal policies are perceived to be 'nicer'. It's better to feed the hungry, shoe the children, and house the homeless; less pleasant to say we can't afford it. (And yes, we all know that it's a guns/butter priority thing, and that BOTH parties today seem more about lining their friends pockets ANYWAY.)
Perhaps it's just me, but I seem to keep hearing absolute conclusions in ancient anthropology from what amounts to 2 points of facts, and 98 points of sheer speculation.
For example, the 'neanderthals did/didn't interbreed with humans' discussion. Some say absolutely not, never, no way. Some say absolutely yes, all the time.
Now this. Considering the snapshots we have of ancient human activity are such a tiny slice of huge spans of time, is it impossible/inconceivable that parallel evolution DID occur and that as varied populations on a more-or-less comparable developmental level encountered each other, they interbred? Would we even be able to tell today?
The basic fact being that human (males, primarily) will mate with pretty much anything else. The internet should be enough proof of THAT.
1) where does "driftwood" come from then? I'm nearly certain that land-species (to say nothing of aquatic ones) have been migrating all over the world through all sorts of avenues probably about as likely or frequent as the washing up of what happens-this-time-to-be-a-manmade-object.
2) Not sure if you were joking, if so my apologies in advance for taking you literally. Of course, anyone who is interested in facts is aware that the 'great pacific garbage patch' (a colossal and deliberately sensational overstatement) is an area of sea where the density of microscopic plastic particulates is 'as high as' a single-digit number per cubic meter of water. I know a lot of people were fooled by environmentalists' clever 'accidental (?) misappropriation' of a picture of some plastic trash floating in the water into thinking that's what the patch is. It's effectively some water where there's a little more plastic DUST.
To say that all wealth comes from government ignores that (optimally) government is a consensual relationship of people, an organization ESTABLISHED by people.
Yes, government (at the very least) protects the boundaries of a society from the 'tooth and claw' outside world, allowing the members within a society to act freely within its bounds.
It's a complete strawman to assert that there is anyone who wants NO government.
However, when a collection of people control government, and their efforts are dedicated to nothing more than preserving their power/wealth, then the individuals within that society have a LEGITIMATE reason to evaluate if the cost of that government (because even a minimal-function government costs money) remains justifiable for the rewards it returns.
If you want a safe place to live, with a place to work, raise your family, and decent roads, hospitals, etc. what's that worth to you? I think most people would agree 10% of their income would be a bargain. 25% probably still. 50%? 75%? 95%?
At what point do you realize you're running on the treadmill for other people and decide that is enough? I don't think it's unreasonable that people are going to disagree on where that line is drawn.
Here's a *multimillionaire* coming hat-in-hand to say "give me this money and I'll develop that".
Kickstarter seems an effort to crowdsource-reverse the method of capitalism - instead of "if you build it, they will come" KS seems to suggest that you get enough people to say they'll come, you'll build it...maybe.
I'm not poor, but I don't have $50, $100, $500 to blow on a completely speculative venture. It seems that lots of people do? Certainly, a relatively small proportion of people have more spare cash than Neal Stephenson does, yet he's asking US to fund his idea.
On the one hand, the news tells me 24/7 that the economy is a disaster, yet people have millions to dump into thin-air projects with no knowledge that the kickstarter will use the funds properly or even has any capability to do it.
Considering that the only really constructive solutions OTHER than " 'Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.'" are essentially genocidal and/or totalitarian, I'm going to go with 'Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.'
Simply put, the only REAL solution to the overwhelming number of people on this planet is to remove great chunks of them (and prevent people from re-breeding to those levels) or a society in which we're all "have-nots" living at some government-decreed minimum functional level (Soylent Green is the tastiest, I understand), everything else is really just twiddling at the edges.
The alternatives are to find some way of making it NOT a zero sum game (ie space exploration, which our governments have decreed is not worth the opportunity cost of making sure SueAnn and her 14 kids all are fed and cared for), or 'Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.'.
By Maturity, I mean of the tech. Kinect is cool, no doubt, but it's still rather mediocre at tracking subtle movements. This means it works for games that feature gross physical gestures, but still it's nothing like as high a level as resolution as the cheapest controllers.
By Context I mean of the game. If I'm playing a boxing game on my couch, I might want to just play the game, and not actually BOX. If I want to go play golf, I'll go play golf (ie outdoors). If I'm playing Skyrim at midnight, I might not want to be SHOUTING dragon-shouts in my thin-walled apartment. There are lots of games that work great with the system, but in my view a roughly-equal level of reasons NOT to want to play with anything but a controller.
Weren't there theories in the early 20th century that humans had evolved from different primates in different places roughly simultaneously (at that time, used as a justification for a sort of patronizing racism - that of course the nonwhite peoples were 'not as evolved' as whites)?
Trying not to resurrect that theory's rationale, but would the article's line of reasoning perhaps suggest that humans MAY in fact have evolved in at least 2 places?
Racism's bad enough today. What would be the result if we figured out that we're actually the result of two SEPARATE human lines who somehow ended up interbreeding?
What you're misunderstanding is the point of education in the US.
It's not something as simple as the betterment of the individual. I wish it were. It's now the confluence of esteem, politics, and money (always), with actual education far, far down the list.
First came the premise that colleges shouldn't be elitist. In a well-intentioned quest to broaden the viewpoint/participation in higher education from being exclusively white and male, the state stepped in. "Affirmative Action" (one of the nicest euphemisms for "punitive racism" I've ever heard) was put in place, making it not only legal but morally right (in the collective wisdom) for a school admissions department to prefer women and persons of color regardless of test scores.
Of course (again speaking sarcastically, but the intent was genuine) the logic extended to economics - why should only "rich people" get to go to college? So a plethora of government programs, from direct-grants (piles of money handed out) to government-backed low-interest loan programs all have been implemented to help kids pay for school. Today, it's gone so far that the current standard is that loans are forgiven after some arbitrary number of years (it turns out to be a direct subsidy).
But there's no rigor to it. Students are not required to cross any bar of performance or competence (that would be elitist) that suggests they could complete such an education. Moreover, they're INVITED to 'disregard' college cost in their school choice.
Now you no longer have colleges competing for the best students (since everyone is welcome!) and no market-mechanism to control prices (because the gov't will offer payments and ultimately-forgiven loans to reach any need), so what's happened? The cost of college education has rocketed upward while students idle away for 5-6-7 years or longer 'pursuing' bachelor's degrees, simply little money-engines for the schools.
To look at a "public" local university, the University of MN. My dad went to the U of MN in 1955 on a full-ride scholarship, which I believe was valued at about $300/year. Inflating according to the CPI, that would equal $2400 in 2010. I went to the U 1986-1990 and as I recall it was about $3600/year. That would be about $5900 in 2010. Costs for the U of MN next year are estimated around $13000.
Further, this works out well for everyone (well, except for the students who are academically unable to progress, who are stuck in academic limbo for years, who - since there's little economic understanding behind the college choice - continue to take degrees that offer them utterly nothing in terms of post-academic gainful employment...unless they spend another 6 years plugging away to get their masters/phd and teach). Politicians get to show the public how much they "care" (with taxpayer money). Schools have no competitive pressure to keep costs/tuition down. And there's a constant stream of public money essentially keeping teachers employed, perhaps the most faithful demographic voting for the same political party that keeps this system churning along - who not-incidentally serve to indoctrinate new generations of young minds to the Left.
Whether a kid gets a useful education? Irrelevant. Whether a kid actually graduates? Irrelevant.
So the old saw that college is paid-for in Europe, and costs people in the US is really only partly true today. Now much (most?) of college education in the US is funneled through a waterwheel of political leverage and patronage in order to fuel other purposes than education.
The point isn't to DO anything constructive. DOING THINGS takes work, determination, money, and (above all) persistence and courage - all things anathema to modern political leadership.
This is another example of 'security theater' - most famously practiced by US DoHS in airports. Minimal/no actual increase in security, but a clear and visible example of government "doing something", which can also conveniently be used to funnel $billions in public funds to political supporters. The key detail is that there is no metric for success/failure, or even evaluation.
All great suggestions. My caveat would be that all your suggestions re Russia really probably apply to most of the world. My experience is especially with India and Pakistani small businessmen, and they do the very things you specifically call out as "especially in Russia". *except the "bride" thing, that's perhaps a compensation Russia excels in.:)
Essentially, I've found that you can be a fairly successful small businessperson in the US midwest assuming a fair amount of trust. The rest of the world? Not so much.
Simply assume there is NO goodwill, no trust between you and your client. Not that you have to be a dick, just be meticulous, specific, and thorough. And willing to push hard if you have been these things. Always hold back something at the end for that final leverage.
There's a reasonable criticism of emotionalism, then again, there's a strange pathological fear of adjectives?
A theory that life may have been seeded here from other worlds is a reasonable but 'outsider' theory.
A theory that giant space clowns seeded our world by mating with balloons would be a 'crackpot' theory, and justifiably named so. For that matter, the idea that some bearded old giant man hovering in the sky snapped his fingers and *poof* whales existed is a 'crackpot' theory by any scientific standard.
No, not every theory is deserving of reasoned, measured response. Some can be dismissed immediately. Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary proof. If you truly believe something totally bizarre is true, you should (rightly) be required to provide substantial proof.
I understand and very much appreciate the point of the article.
A similar situation happened, as I understand it, with the idea that ulcers were caused by h.pylori - a huge level of institutional resistance to a clever new insight, eventually realized to be true to the point of "how did we not see how obvious this was"? Heck, germ theory itself and the idea of sterilization fought the same uphill battle.
Nevertheless, when reading the always-popular stories about the "outsiders" with the "radical" new theory fighting uphill to achieve fame and ultimate confirmation and vindication, it's always important to keep in mind that this DOESN'T imply any sort of validation for every crackpot theory that's out there. There are a lot of very, very stupid ideas that are reviled BECAUSE they're wrong.
Being very self-assured and certain you're right has nothing to do with actually being right. Life isn't a storybook. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the case of the OP, it took the discovery of evidence that made the energy-level math work out. Before that, even though the theory (today) seems to be right, it was CORRECT that mainstream science rejected it until it was supportable.
Sometimes you might have a great idea, and you might even be right, but it may take longer than your lifetime for it to finally be proved.
This is what happens when people purport that they understand something, that they really don't "get". I love when seculars paint the religious in strawman colors.
"...If the Garden of Eden never happened, the fall never happened. then there would be no need for the death of Jesus Christ...."
Um, here's a quick question: if the Garden of Eden never happened, is there still almost-unlimited sin in the world?
Most Christians will tell you that the GoE story is allegory, and that Christ died to absolve us from all the sins that we commit as simply fallible humans.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, pedantry +1.
I know people on slashdot LOVE to 'game' legalities in this sort of situation (let's do one about copying music without paying for it next!), but to suggest that people who accessed it did 'nothing wrong' you have a pretty fucked-up moral code.
I'll absolutely agree that the company putting it up unsecured was at fault for doing something staggeringly dumb.
But having to 'exploit' something, or 'bypass' things isn't the line by which I measure whether something is 'wrong' or not. Ethically, perhaps, but certainly not morally. Sometimes, things simply ARE wrong, and no amount of sophomoric hair-splitting really changes that.
It's unfortunate that today's society seems more concerned with what they can 'get away with' or how closely they can skate to the rules, than simply recognizing the difference between right and wrong.
If you think this 'double standard' is anything new, I'd love to hear you explain the essential difference between US's "patriots" in 1776 and any other anti-colonial "insurgents".
Every nation forever has interpreted things this way.
I hear that a lot from 'rebels' actually. I'm curious what you really mean?
Of course, from the examples I've witnessed, their 'slapdowns' are neither capricious nor arbitrary. Let's use the last four instances of 'authority being challenged' I've seen already this week:
- no, you can't smoke weed in school.
- no, you're not a precious snowflake, you have to follow the rules laid out for everyone
- no, you have to have a parking pass because there are limited parking spaces. Even if you "really just need to park here for a second"
- The school day is over at 3:00. We as the school are responsible for you until then, so no you can't just 'run across the highway to get a Red Bull"
I'll be the FIRST to agree with you that the 'no tolerance' rules are idiotic, and mainly crafted NOT for the welfare of the kids, but to protect administrations from having to make (and defend) judgement calls from schools of litigation-hungry lawyers. But that's not the SCHOOL's fault. Schools are empowered *exactly* to the degree that parents (through their school board) chose, over time.
Take our two school districts. In one, a teacher physically 'disarmed' a kid who was harming other students with their book (cracking them hard with the spine). That teacher was suspended with pay pending an investigation, because they put their hands on a kid. Another adjacent district, a kid made a particulary foul-mouthed comment to a teacher and she slapped him. His parents not only REFUSED to press charges, they forced the kid to apologize to the teacher. (That didn't stop one opportunistic parent from discussing suing the district for the 'emotional harm' done to their student for witnessing the encounter. That suit didn't go anywhere though.) Two districts, two entirely different approaches....all based on the parent response.
Yep it's just Republicans.
(Quod Erat Demonstratum.)
...or are Schneier, Stallman, et all just becoming a touch too precious and righteous lately?
This reminds me of the UCS talking all over the place in the 1980s against the US SDI program. You had a bunch of physicists with impressive academic credentials opining on geopolitical matters on which they are NO MORE QUALIFIED TO COMMENT than Alfred E Neumann.
Here's the example that I posited at that time (which earned me a "F" on that assignment for daring to make such an assertion):
How would these individuals respond if Kissenger started making public pronouncements about the foolishness of IP6, or on the security of Windows OSs, or on the worthlessness of open-source software? Their response - and it would be ENTIRELY justified - would be "Kissenger knows fuck-all about these subjects, who cares what he says? Why are his comments even being reported?"
Well, Mr Schneier, let me point out that as far as geopolitics are concerned, (you) know fuck-all about these subjects, who cares what you say? Why are your comments even worth reporting?
Par for the course, /.
Obama orders an attack on Iran. = "It's Bush's fault!"
Sure, you're credible.
As a structural engineer we all appreciate your insights.
However, "...calamity waiting to happen..." is pretty much what EVERYONE read when they saw "Chinese firm says they can build a skyscraper in 90 days."
I'm not sure who, voluntarily, would be the first (or the thousandth) person in that building.
That's pretty much been the raison d'etre of the UN since at least 1960 on any issue.
Power is a zero-sum thing.
It is always in the interest of the powerLESS to subscribe to supranational organizations and to grant them more power, in order to Gulliverlike give them at least a small chance of control over things that that have no power over today.
The powerful, understanding this, manipulate the organizations such that the 'non-aligned' states work in their interest, chipping away the power of the hegemon.
Of course, we all recognize that at least the US and the West pay lip service attention to the UN and its posturings.
When we hear about such efforts 'through' the UN, one needs to ask oneself if the sponsoring power would promote this if they were sitting in the US's position. Generally the answer is no, spotlighting that the effort is simply a political/economic power grab, nothing more.
Is anyone really fooled by this?
Remember, this is ONLY purporting to describe the difference between observed polling results and the final vote tallies.
I'd suggest that if we discard the hot-button issue of race, we'd find that generally there is almost always (at least) a single-digit difference between what people SAY they're going to vote for, and what they ACTUALLY vote for.
Otherwise, what's the point of a secret ballot? (Union members aren't entitled to comment on this.)
Further, I've noticed in my observation of local (MN) elections since 1984, a 4-6% difference in poll results vs real results, with poll results always skewed in favor of the Democrat. My interpretation is that
a) liberals love to tell you how they voted and what they believe in; conservatives are far more reluctant to do so or to deliberately mislead a pollster
b) we all agree that Liberal policies are perceived to be 'nicer'. It's better to feed the hungry, shoe the children, and house the homeless; less pleasant to say we can't afford it. (And yes, we all know that it's a guns/butter priority thing, and that BOTH parties today seem more about lining their friends pockets ANYWAY.)
They've lowered the standards over the last years, why not lower the award as well?
Of course, I think about $1 is where it's worth today.
Perhaps it's just me, but I seem to keep hearing absolute conclusions in ancient anthropology from what amounts to 2 points of facts, and 98 points of sheer speculation.
For example, the 'neanderthals did/didn't interbreed with humans' discussion. Some say absolutely not, never, no way. Some say absolutely yes, all the time.
Now this. Considering the snapshots we have of ancient human activity are such a tiny slice of huge spans of time, is it impossible/inconceivable that parallel evolution DID occur and that as varied populations on a more-or-less comparable developmental level encountered each other, they interbred? Would we even be able to tell today?
The basic fact being that human (males, primarily) will mate with pretty much anything else. The internet should be enough proof of THAT.
1) where does "driftwood" come from then? I'm nearly certain that land-species (to say nothing of aquatic ones) have been migrating all over the world through all sorts of avenues probably about as likely or frequent as the washing up of what happens-this-time-to-be-a-manmade-object.
2) Not sure if you were joking, if so my apologies in advance for taking you literally. Of course, anyone who is interested in facts is aware that the 'great pacific garbage patch' (a colossal and deliberately sensational overstatement) is an area of sea where the density of microscopic plastic particulates is 'as high as' a single-digit number per cubic meter of water. I know a lot of people were fooled by environmentalists' clever 'accidental (?) misappropriation' of a picture of some plastic trash floating in the water into thinking that's what the patch is. It's effectively some water where there's a little more plastic DUST.
What's "govenment" made of?
To say that all wealth comes from government ignores that (optimally) government is a consensual relationship of people, an organization ESTABLISHED by people.
Yes, government (at the very least) protects the boundaries of a society from the 'tooth and claw' outside world, allowing the members within a society to act freely within its bounds.
It's a complete strawman to assert that there is anyone who wants NO government.
However, when a collection of people control government, and their efforts are dedicated to nothing more than preserving their power/wealth, then the individuals within that society have a LEGITIMATE reason to evaluate if the cost of that government (because even a minimal-function government costs money) remains justifiable for the rewards it returns.
If you want a safe place to live, with a place to work, raise your family, and decent roads, hospitals, etc. what's that worth to you? I think most people would agree 10% of their income would be a bargain. 25% probably still. 50%? 75%? 95%?
At what point do you realize you're running on the treadmill for other people and decide that is enough? I don't think it's unreasonable that people are going to disagree on where that line is drawn.
Here's a *multimillionaire* coming hat-in-hand to say "give me this money and I'll develop that".
Kickstarter seems an effort to crowdsource-reverse the method of capitalism - instead of "if you build it, they will come" KS seems to suggest that you get enough people to say they'll come, you'll build it...maybe.
I'm not poor, but I don't have $50, $100, $500 to blow on a completely speculative venture. It seems that lots of people do? Certainly, a relatively small proportion of people have more spare cash than Neal Stephenson does, yet he's asking US to fund his idea.
On the one hand, the news tells me 24/7 that the economy is a disaster, yet people have millions to dump into thin-air projects with no knowledge that the kickstarter will use the funds properly or even has any capability to do it.
Considering that the only really constructive solutions OTHER than " 'Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.'" are essentially genocidal and/or totalitarian, I'm going to go with 'Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.'
Simply put, the only REAL solution to the overwhelming number of people on this planet is to remove great chunks of them (and prevent people from re-breeding to those levels) or a society in which we're all "have-nots" living at some government-decreed minimum functional level (Soylent Green is the tastiest, I understand), everything else is really just twiddling at the edges.
The alternatives are to find some way of making it NOT a zero sum game (ie space exploration, which our governments have decreed is not worth the opportunity cost of making sure SueAnn and her 14 kids all are fed and cared for), or 'Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.'.
By Maturity, I mean of the tech. Kinect is cool, no doubt, but it's still rather mediocre at tracking subtle movements. This means it works for games that feature gross physical gestures, but still it's nothing like as high a level as resolution as the cheapest controllers.
By Context I mean of the game. If I'm playing a boxing game on my couch, I might want to just play the game, and not actually BOX. If I want to go play golf, I'll go play golf (ie outdoors). If I'm playing Skyrim at midnight, I might not want to be SHOUTING dragon-shouts in my thin-walled apartment. There are lots of games that work great with the system, but in my view a roughly-equal level of reasons NOT to want to play with anything but a controller.
Weren't there theories in the early 20th century that humans had evolved from different primates in different places roughly simultaneously (at that time, used as a justification for a sort of patronizing racism - that of course the nonwhite peoples were 'not as evolved' as whites)?
Trying not to resurrect that theory's rationale, but would the article's line of reasoning perhaps suggest that humans MAY in fact have evolved in at least 2 places?
Racism's bad enough today. What would be the result if we figured out that we're actually the result of two SEPARATE human lines who somehow ended up interbreeding?
What you're misunderstanding is the point of education in the US.
It's not something as simple as the betterment of the individual. I wish it were.
It's now the confluence of esteem, politics, and money (always), with actual education far, far down the list.
First came the premise that colleges shouldn't be elitist. In a well-intentioned quest to broaden the viewpoint/participation in higher education from being exclusively white and male, the state stepped in. "Affirmative Action" (one of the nicest euphemisms for "punitive racism" I've ever heard) was put in place, making it not only legal but morally right (in the collective wisdom) for a school admissions department to prefer women and persons of color regardless of test scores.
Of course (again speaking sarcastically, but the intent was genuine) the logic extended to economics - why should only "rich people" get to go to college? So a plethora of government programs, from direct-grants (piles of money handed out) to government-backed low-interest loan programs all have been implemented to help kids pay for school. Today, it's gone so far that the current standard is that loans are forgiven after some arbitrary number of years (it turns out to be a direct subsidy).
But there's no rigor to it. Students are not required to cross any bar of performance or competence (that would be elitist) that suggests they could complete such an education. Moreover, they're INVITED to 'disregard' college cost in their school choice.
Now you no longer have colleges competing for the best students (since everyone is welcome!) and no market-mechanism to control prices (because the gov't will offer payments and ultimately-forgiven loans to reach any need), so what's happened? The cost of college education has rocketed upward while students idle away for 5-6-7 years or longer 'pursuing' bachelor's degrees, simply little money-engines for the schools.
To look at a "public" local university, the University of MN.
My dad went to the U of MN in 1955 on a full-ride scholarship, which I believe was valued at about $300/year. Inflating according to the CPI, that would equal $2400 in 2010.
I went to the U 1986-1990 and as I recall it was about $3600/year. That would be about $5900 in 2010.
Costs for the U of MN next year are estimated around $13000.
Further, this works out well for everyone (well, except for the students who are academically unable to progress, who are stuck in academic limbo for years, who - since there's little economic understanding behind the college choice - continue to take degrees that offer them utterly nothing in terms of post-academic gainful employment...unless they spend another 6 years plugging away to get their masters/phd and teach). Politicians get to show the public how much they "care" (with taxpayer money). Schools have no competitive pressure to keep costs/tuition down. And there's a constant stream of public money essentially keeping teachers employed, perhaps the most faithful demographic voting for the same political party that keeps this system churning along - who not-incidentally serve to indoctrinate new generations of young minds to the Left.
Whether a kid gets a useful education? Irrelevant.
Whether a kid actually graduates? Irrelevant.
So the old saw that college is paid-for in Europe, and costs people in the US is really only partly true today. Now much (most?) of college education in the US is funneled through a waterwheel of political leverage and patronage in order to fuel other purposes than education.
You're spot on, but you miss the point.
The point isn't to DO anything constructive. DOING THINGS takes work, determination, money, and (above all) persistence and courage - all things anathema to modern political leadership.
This is another example of 'security theater' - most famously practiced by US DoHS in airports. Minimal/no actual increase in security, but a clear and visible example of government "doing something", which can also conveniently be used to funnel $billions in public funds to political supporters. The key detail is that there is no metric for success/failure, or even evaluation.
Blah blah blah feminism blah blah blah don't exploit women blah blah blah if I had a daughter blah blah blah.
In fact most of us didn't read it because there weren't enough pictures.
All great suggestions. My caveat would be that all your suggestions re Russia really probably apply to most of the world. My experience is especially with India and Pakistani small businessmen, and they do the very things you specifically call out as "especially in Russia". :)
*except the "bride" thing, that's perhaps a compensation Russia excels in.
Essentially, I've found that you can be a fairly successful small businessperson in the US midwest assuming a fair amount of trust. The rest of the world? Not so much.
Simply assume there is NO goodwill, no trust between you and your client. Not that you have to be a dick, just be meticulous, specific, and thorough. And willing to push hard if you have been these things. Always hold back something at the end for that final leverage.
There's a reasonable criticism of emotionalism, then again, there's a strange pathological fear of adjectives?
A theory that life may have been seeded here from other worlds is a reasonable but 'outsider' theory.
A theory that giant space clowns seeded our world by mating with balloons would be a 'crackpot' theory, and justifiably named so. For that matter, the idea that some bearded old giant man hovering in the sky snapped his fingers and *poof* whales existed is a 'crackpot' theory by any scientific standard.
No, not every theory is deserving of reasoned, measured response. Some can be dismissed immediately. Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary proof. If you truly believe something totally bizarre is true, you should (rightly) be required to provide substantial proof.
I understand and very much appreciate the point of the article.
A similar situation happened, as I understand it, with the idea that ulcers were caused by h.pylori - a huge level of institutional resistance to a clever new insight, eventually realized to be true to the point of "how did we not see how obvious this was"? Heck, germ theory itself and the idea of sterilization fought the same uphill battle.
Nevertheless, when reading the always-popular stories about the "outsiders" with the "radical" new theory fighting uphill to achieve fame and ultimate confirmation and vindication, it's always important to keep in mind that this DOESN'T imply any sort of validation for every crackpot theory that's out there. There are a lot of very, very stupid ideas that are reviled BECAUSE they're wrong.
Being very self-assured and certain you're right has nothing to do with actually being right. Life isn't a storybook. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the case of the OP, it took the discovery of evidence that made the energy-level math work out. Before that, even though the theory (today) seems to be right, it was CORRECT that mainstream science rejected it until it was supportable.
Sometimes you might have a great idea, and you might even be right, but it may take longer than your lifetime for it to finally be proved.
Not sure how you get there, except by the most tortuous, desperate reasoning.
It's amusing when seculars sound as desperate and reaching as bible literalists. You folks have a lot in common.
This is what happens when people purport that they understand something, that they really don't "get".
I love when seculars paint the religious in strawman colors.
"...If the Garden of Eden never happened, the fall never happened. then there would be no need for the death of Jesus Christ...."
Um, here's a quick question: if the Garden of Eden never happened, is there still almost-unlimited sin in the world?
Most Christians will tell you that the GoE story is allegory, and that Christ died to absolve us from all the sins that we commit as simply fallible humans.