Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal... Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.
So it's somehow better to not sign the non-proliferation treaty and develop nukes than it is to sign and be accused of creating nukes. Technical indeed.
Next, one of the world's most technical nations purposely inserts a destructive virus into facilities working with one of the most dangerous radioactive substances. Thus ensuring, supposedly, a signatory doesn't develop alleged weapons while 3 countries continue developing actual nuclear weapons. Alleged (adj.): "Iraq was alleged to have WMDs."
Stuxnet didn't change warfare. Somewhat like software patents, just because unconscionable actions happen on the Internet doesn't mean anything new is happening.
All those kids that used to live on family farms? Well let's school them to be good factory workers. That's not enough though, let's use the "no child left behind" notion to, not integrate every kid but rather, start lowering standards for every student. And why are we spending so much money on those inconsistent teachers with their different approaches to differing students. And get rid of teacher unions, which just work for livable salaries and benefits which are well below that of the typical CEO giving advice to newspaper transcribers (used to be journalists, now hardly even reporters).
Then, then! Let's eliminate those factory jobs we trained those students to obey without thinking or resenting too much by moving the factories to cheaper countries. Countries where pollution controls and labor laws are rarely practiced. And place them in tax-free zones so no taxes are wasted on schools and infrastructure and such. Yeah the local workers have crap lives, but it's slightly better than farm life, right? And those factory workers in the original country, the ones that lost their jobs? They can go back to school!
And those people that pursue higher education, especially the ones doing it for better jobs? Well let's make universities extremely expensive, so graduates are in debt and will take any job and abuse in order to start paying back loans. Especially their credit card loans, which were offered in hopes of burying them in 12-30% interest payments for life; in addition to the 1.5 to 3% the credit company skimmed off the top. There is a need for a few scientists to figure out what's really going on in the world, and to make new devices (to simplify jobs, reduce worker headcounts, and entertain the poor who can't afford a vacation). And a need for a few financial wizards (that since the 1970s have gained control of 1/3 of the US economy), but those can come from the 1% of already rich families which have about 50% of the country's wealth; and the occasional (H1-B?) computer mathematician who can figure the odds on stocks, nanosecond currency exchanges, and credit default swaps--and fix the laptop. And if those financiers screw up and the whole economic system crashes, there's always the regular taxpayer providing insurance (why is it called "bail outs?") to corporations and their executives, keeping the cash flowing. Those same corporate execs who whine about paying taxes even when they don't. Yeah the newspapers publish that once in a while, but no one changes the tax laws to be more fair; so the facts recede from memory and we can get back to blaming immigrants, teacher salaries, sexuality, skin shadings, religions, and other nationalities--and if someone investigates too honestly there's always "national defense" to end inquiries.
Well, the laws do get changed, mostly by corporate lobbyists, who want to decrease taxes on the rich, remove laws that are costly to corporations (no matter what the effect on people and the environment), and increasingly shift jobs that are performed fairly well by government (social security, healthcare, military, prisons, schools, water, energy, roads) to the private sector. The private sector, AKA corporations, where a select few can make big salaries, shareholders can get their dividends, and workers can be replaced by someone even more poorly off who's willing to work for rent and food money while doing without healthcare (that's what the ER is for, and credit cards, and payday loans). And to make the business profitable, why not reduce expenses like retirement, healthcare, living wages, long-term livable surroundings, education, clean water, cleaner energy, and reliable roads? It's just business, got to keep those shareholders from selling their stock. Nevermind the stakeholders or the public.
And those people with a bad job or no job, what about them? Well they're poor or homeless because of the schools. Obviously. We should implement vouchers for private sector schools, and start training children correctly.
I'm not an apologist, just a reasonable person who thinks knee-jerking against corporations is stupid. And my post was reacting to cpu6502 posting completely false statements in support of his fallacious point. Your sources are not reliable, they are activist sites with a very blatant agenda and no evidence-based reasoning.
"Knee-jerk" is dismissing the messenger without addressing the message; as is your use of "activist sites" and "blatant agenda." These are standard propaganda terms (i.e. "name calling"). With very little reading, you will find that Vandana Shiva could just as easily be called an independent researcher, albeit a vocal one.
Corporations single guideline is profit. This is well known and established in court. Corporations are somewhat restricted by laws (which is why having lobbyists write laws is so profitable), but are not constrained by morals like you and I are. This is largely why informed people are immediately suspicious of corporate actions and motives.
Perhaps we can avoid cherry-picking info sources and think for ourselves using some evidence-based reasoning. Suppose you're a farmer, barely making a living what with all the set-backs of weather, climate, varying prices for crops, and such. Where once you used free seed from last year's crop, now you're buying seed and sprays every year from Monsanto. Advertisements suggested profits and yield would abundantly rise, but this was not the typical experience of farmers. Would you expect, with these additional expenses, your profits to go up or down? If you had no other way to feed your family or pay your new bills except to sell your small farm, would you expect suicides to go up or down? If you were Monsanto, would you want people blaming your corporation or another somewhat correlated cause?
Maybe you are or are not a corporate apologist, but your initial and follow-up comments are indistinguishable from one.
This is one of the most misinformed comments I have ever seen on/. You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about the Indian farmer suicide problem, which began years before Monsanto started selling GM seed in India, and is absolutely nothing to do with the company. The suicides are, according to most analyses I've seen, usually linked closely with widespread crop failures which follow monsoon drought seasons. It's a climate problem, not a Monsanto problem.
If you check your own source, it states: "monsoons leading to a series of droughts, lack of better prices, exploitation by Middlemen, all of which have led to a series of suicides committed by farmers across India." If the droughts were the main cause then prices would go up from lack of supply. Since prices are falling, the pricing problem is largely for other reasons, including middlemen like Monsanto.
And farmer suicide being the #2 killer in India? That's so stupid it hurts to read. If you check the WHO mortality data, you'll find non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases account for 9/10 of the top ten causes of death, with accidental injury being the 10th.
Again, if you check your own source, the WHO data is irrelevant since it's for all of India, not just farmers. If you check your Wikipedia source, this states that farmer suicides are increasing.
Please, in future, try not to comment until you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
You would do well to take your own advice; but then apologists rarely do.
i really hate to break it to you but if you have a thought, and you put it on a wire that leads to a public network, you have just given up your right to privacy... not legally, but logically
The point being made is that a US citizen, somewhat like Ethiopians, have an expectation or right to privacy; a right now largely gone and the remains of which are continually legislated away. Ever since party line telephones and open windows, people have been aware of privacy concerns. What is at issue is the legality of such actions, the morality of the laws, not the logical or physical ability. There is considerable difference between governments and corporations collecting your private correspondences legally, and rogue groups doing so illegally. Though pretty much everyone around here keeps becoming more aware of how to defend data from both legal and illegal opportunists.
Anecdotally, I once worked for an audiologist and became friends with the receptionist. Everyone who came in for a free hearing test needed a hearing aid. Everyone.
Indeed. One of the things that I find is a problem with really bright people is overconfidence, a belief that because they are brilliant in one area, they therefore are brilliant in all areas.
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4
studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
As to polymath's frequency though...
True polymaths are probably so rare that even the most seasoned and well-connected academic won't meet one.
Since I know several personally, and know of more, I suspect that well-connected academics have met way more than one--even though polymaths don't necessarily go into traditional academia. Knowing their rarity is intriguing though, if you have some cites.
The phrase for this is "stereotype threat." It's real, there's nothing funny about it; serious and humorless is the better approach. I recently caught myself making a sexual distinction even while pointing out the false generalization of a particular nationality distinction. Stereotypes are insidious; if you're laughing it off, you're a bigot.
Misunderstanding perhaps, since I was supplying a reference which supported your informative comment. Tofof calling your version of the Philippines' history "laughably wrong" is itself laughably, or rather sadly, misinformed.
Cite which supports the above interpretation: Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow. GP's post is largely false and mimics the US Government's official interpretation of events, which has little to do with how the Philippine population was treated.
First - the internet doesn't immediately rank as a survival item. Not even close. BUT I agree with your point that it should be very close after satisfying those needs.
For varying ranges of "close.";D
And to those in power that's a dangerous thing. And until we fix the system (not likely any time soon) you will see them clamp down and clamp down hard on anything they consider a threat to their nice cushy positions.
If history is an indication, the "fix" has no ending but is instead immersing onself in an ongoing struggle. The greedy rich never stop being greedy; oh they miss opportunities once in a while but they don't give up their longterm self-interests. Just as the poor, despite setbacks, continue to make life better, and eventually more fair, for their family, friends, and neighbors.
See, this is the basic problem with liberals. They do not understand the basic foundations of any other viewpoint. It has been demonstrated in many studies - conservatives can pass a "Turing test" and pretend to be a believable liberal; Liberals cannot pass the same test pretending to be conservatives. (In my opinion, because once you understand the conservative argument it is difficult not to agree with it.)
Without a reliable cite, it's hard to believe the "many studies" are accurate or useful, or even very interesting. If an herbalist can fake being a chemist, but the chemist can't fake being a herbalist, do you really want to believe the herbalist is superior?
The intriguing fact is how easily conservatives agree with, or believe, their own argument. According to When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political
Misperceptions (pdf), political people, notably conservatives, are quite susceptible to "motivated reasoning." This states that when confronted with a reality opposed to their views, conservatives become even more convinced of their indoctrination. Which goes some way toward explaining your opinion that "once you understand the conservative argument it is difficult not to agree with it." Conservatives will be inclined to dismiss this study, since it's based on science, which they trust less than their dogma.
Though the argument should be made that being conservative or liberal are not the only 2 choices. For example there are people who find that science, facts, evidence, and fairness should largely influence political decisions.
At a yard sale, homemade DVDs and VHS tapes typically end up in the free box, while used retail versions are $1 to $5. I suspect copies of money would be much the same.
The powerful already have all the tools they need to eliminate your privacy. This is a tool for us to eliminate their privacy.
Why is it always an "us" vs. "them" scenario? What happens if I, a lowly geek, eventually through career progression and knowing the right people, finds myself in a position of corporate power? Will you come after me too? I'm aware of the (correctly-quoted) saying "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but just going after those in power just because they ARE in power seems foolish. Not everyone in power is a dick. I admit the list of those who aren't is extraordinary low but still...[emphasis added]
And that there is why; answered by a trustworthy source, your own experience. (And I look forward to trusting you as your career progresses, as you start hanging with the right people, as those right people decide you demonstrate profitable corporate power skills.)
Properly done. No it won't. Incorrectly done, there's the chance it will. If you think the rock formations are the same all the way down, you're fooling yourself.
You can read the article two ways, one is to accept the author's slant, the other is for facts and make your own assessment. If you read only the first paragraph, then the whole problem is improperly followed procedures. If you read the whole article for facts, you'll find statements like this:
"As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate."
So no confirmed cases, according to this study, but contamination is a significant risk. What requirements are there for "confirmed," and what about the study itself? Read to the bottom of the article and you'll find it was performed by a school that gets some portion of research funds from "three or four large energy companies." With one large energy company, named in a current fracturing-related lawsuit in Texas, partially funding a follow-up study at the same school. Is an energy company going to invest in a friendly, independent, or hostile institute to do its research? You'll perhaps understand a careful reader being sceptical of the conclusions.
Fracturing the earth around gas and water with unknown chemicals is currently and frequently being incorrectly done. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
And I'm sure you're also going on about that BS movie where people were lighting their taps on fire, but guess what, people were doing that before. Hell there's places around me where that's possible from naturally occurring methane in the water. Mostly well water, and you need to back pressure it in your well. Really though, next I'm sure you'll go on a rant about how the tar sands are evil. But gloss over the fact that oil has been leeching into the rivers in Canada for thousands of years. Hell, there's enough oil leeching naturally that people used to(and still do) patch their boats with it.
So you're saying that hydraulically fracturing the ground around oil and pumping in proprietary chemical mixtures, in addition to the natural leeching, can't increase the methane and chemical pollutants in your drinking water over time?
IMHO, blaming the scientists is fucking absurd. I think that of the people indicted in this mess, the only one who is at fault is the politician. The most guilty people in this are the idiots who took action concerning their own safety based on their interpretation of what a politician said and against their better instincts.
Saying the only one at fault is the politician, but the most guilty are the idiot people, doesn't really make sense. And suggesting people should trust their instincts above what they perceived to be a scientist's report is risky territory. Though knowing when to distrust a politician gets easier with age.
To simplify a lot: people act on instincts, experience, news, and many other notions. Profitable news edits quotes from politicians. Politicians edit reports from scientists. Scientists produce reports based on analysis of current and historical data. Scientist's analysis depends on instincts, education, and research news. Data is subject to human and machine interpretation. There are several opportunities for idiocy. Guessing the percentage of responsibility for each of those opportunities is, apparently, the goal of the court case.
Not really a disagreement, but (in addition to executive and shareholder profits) insurance rates in the US are already based on driver habits. Car owners who get in a relatively large number of accidents or get too many speeding violations have their rates raised. What then does GPS monitoring do for rates? It gives the insurance company another reason to raise rates and has a chilling effect on driving habits. Someone is always looking over your shoulder and writing down your actions and locations as you go about your life. This is an invasion of privacy, the arguments for which are well known.
Going to visit your friend who lives beside an insurance scammer or meth dealer? Should you really dodge that dog in the road? Will you be paying for those decisions for years?
He didn't stay there for too long because of big business.
Let's see, in 1991 Aristide was president for 8 months before a CIA-backed coup d'etat. Then for 1.5 years starting in 1995. Then another 4 years starting in 2001, until he was kidnapped by the US in 2004. So he was president for about 6 years total.
Your point is well made though, big business and the US government didn't give up just because a grassroots person got elected. Not giving up appears to be a key to success. Including secretive copyright extensions.
Haiti allowed Aristide to be elected, in spite of the media and big business. Bolivia allowed Morales to be elected, in spite of the media and big business. If those two countries can elect a people's candidate, the US can. Believing big business "will never allow" something is indoctrination.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal... Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.
So it's somehow better to not sign the non-proliferation treaty and develop nukes than it is to sign and be accused of creating nukes. Technical indeed.
Next, one of the world's most technical nations purposely inserts a destructive virus into facilities working with one of the most dangerous radioactive substances. Thus ensuring, supposedly, a signatory doesn't develop alleged weapons while 3 countries continue developing actual nuclear weapons. Alleged (adj.): "Iraq was alleged to have WMDs."
Stuxnet didn't change warfare. Somewhat like software patents, just because unconscionable actions happen on the Internet doesn't mean anything new is happening.
All those kids that used to live on family farms? Well let's school them to be good factory workers. That's not enough though, let's use the "no child left behind" notion to, not integrate every kid but rather, start lowering standards for every student. And why are we spending so much money on those inconsistent teachers with their different approaches to differing students. And get rid of teacher unions, which just work for livable salaries and benefits which are well below that of the typical CEO giving advice to newspaper transcribers (used to be journalists, now hardly even reporters).
Then, then! Let's eliminate those factory jobs we trained those students to obey without thinking or resenting too much by moving the factories to cheaper countries. Countries where pollution controls and labor laws are rarely practiced. And place them in tax-free zones so no taxes are wasted on schools and infrastructure and such. Yeah the local workers have crap lives, but it's slightly better than farm life, right? And those factory workers in the original country, the ones that lost their jobs? They can go back to school!
And those people that pursue higher education, especially the ones doing it for better jobs? Well let's make universities extremely expensive, so graduates are in debt and will take any job and abuse in order to start paying back loans. Especially their credit card loans, which were offered in hopes of burying them in 12-30% interest payments for life; in addition to the 1.5 to 3% the credit company skimmed off the top. There is a need for a few scientists to figure out what's really going on in the world, and to make new devices (to simplify jobs, reduce worker headcounts, and entertain the poor who can't afford a vacation). And a need for a few financial wizards (that since the 1970s have gained control of 1/3 of the US economy), but those can come from the 1% of already rich families which have about 50% of the country's wealth; and the occasional (H1-B?) computer mathematician who can figure the odds on stocks, nanosecond currency exchanges, and credit default swaps--and fix the laptop. And if those financiers screw up and the whole economic system crashes, there's always the regular taxpayer providing insurance (why is it called "bail outs?") to corporations and their executives, keeping the cash flowing. Those same corporate execs who whine about paying taxes even when they don't. Yeah the newspapers publish that once in a while, but no one changes the tax laws to be more fair; so the facts recede from memory and we can get back to blaming immigrants, teacher salaries, sexuality, skin shadings, religions, and other nationalities--and if someone investigates too honestly there's always "national defense" to end inquiries.
Well, the laws do get changed, mostly by corporate lobbyists, who want to decrease taxes on the rich, remove laws that are costly to corporations (no matter what the effect on people and the environment), and increasingly shift jobs that are performed fairly well by government (social security, healthcare, military, prisons, schools, water, energy, roads) to the private sector. The private sector, AKA corporations, where a select few can make big salaries, shareholders can get their dividends, and workers can be replaced by someone even more poorly off who's willing to work for rent and food money while doing without healthcare (that's what the ER is for, and credit cards, and payday loans). And to make the business profitable, why not reduce expenses like retirement, healthcare, living wages, long-term livable surroundings, education, clean water, cleaner energy, and reliable roads? It's just business, got to keep those shareholders from selling their stock. Nevermind the stakeholders or the public.
And those people with a bad job or no job, what about them? Well they're poor or homeless because of the schools. Obviously. We should implement vouchers for private sector schools, and start training children correctly.
I'm not an apologist, just a reasonable person who thinks knee-jerking against corporations is stupid. And my post was reacting to cpu6502 posting completely false statements in support of his fallacious point. Your sources are not reliable, they are activist sites with a very blatant agenda and no evidence-based reasoning.
"Knee-jerk" is dismissing the messenger without addressing the message; as is your use of "activist sites" and "blatant agenda." These are standard propaganda terms (i.e. "name calling"). With very little reading, you will find that Vandana Shiva could just as easily be called an independent researcher, albeit a vocal one.
Corporations single guideline is profit. This is well known and established in court. Corporations are somewhat restricted by laws (which is why having lobbyists write laws is so profitable), but are not constrained by morals like you and I are. This is largely why informed people are immediately suspicious of corporate actions and motives.
Perhaps we can avoid cherry-picking info sources and think for ourselves using some evidence-based reasoning. Suppose you're a farmer, barely making a living what with all the set-backs of weather, climate, varying prices for crops, and such. Where once you used free seed from last year's crop, now you're buying seed and sprays every year from Monsanto. Advertisements suggested profits and yield would abundantly rise, but this was not the typical experience of farmers. Would you expect, with these additional expenses, your profits to go up or down? If you had no other way to feed your family or pay your new bills except to sell your small farm, would you expect suicides to go up or down? If you were Monsanto, would you want people blaming your corporation or another somewhat correlated cause?
Maybe you are or are not a corporate apologist, but your initial and follow-up comments are indistinguishable from one.
So you're OK with governments and corporations recording all voice and data that leaves your house?
This is one of the most misinformed comments I have ever seen on /. You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about the Indian farmer suicide problem, which began years before Monsanto started selling GM seed in India, and is absolutely nothing to do with the company. The suicides are, according to most analyses I've seen, usually linked closely with widespread crop failures which follow monsoon drought seasons. It's a climate problem, not a Monsanto problem.
If you check your own source, it states: "monsoons leading to a series of droughts, lack of better prices, exploitation by Middlemen, all of which have led to a series of suicides committed by farmers across India." If the droughts were the main cause then prices would go up from lack of supply. Since prices are falling, the pricing problem is largely for other reasons, including middlemen like Monsanto.
And farmer suicide being the #2 killer in India? That's so stupid it hurts to read. If you check the WHO mortality data, you'll find non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases account for 9/10 of the top ten causes of death, with accidental injury being the 10th.
Again, if you check your own source, the WHO data is irrelevant since it's for all of India, not just farmers. If you check your Wikipedia source, this states that farmer suicides are increasing.
Please, in future, try not to comment until you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
You would do well to take your own advice; but then apologists rarely do.
Additional sources: Monsanto in India and Vandana Shiva.
i really hate to break it to you but if you have a thought, and you put it on a wire that leads to a public network, you have just given up your right to privacy... not legally, but logically
The point being made is that a US citizen, somewhat like Ethiopians, have an expectation or right to privacy; a right now largely gone and the remains of which are continually legislated away. Ever since party line telephones and open windows, people have been aware of privacy concerns. What is at issue is the legality of such actions, the morality of the laws, not the logical or physical ability. There is considerable difference between governments and corporations collecting your private correspondences legally, and rogue groups doing so illegally. Though pretty much everyone around here keeps becoming more aware of how to defend data from both legal and illegal opportunists.
This comment:
Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained.
is at odds with this comment:
There's even a new strain which broke out in a medical research facility in Reston, VA in 1998 which was contagious only to monkeys.
Anecdotally, I once worked for an audiologist and became friends with the receptionist. Everyone who came in for a free hearing test needed a hearing aid. Everyone.
Indeed. One of the things that I find is a problem with really bright people is overconfidence, a belief that because they are brilliant in one area, they therefore are brilliant in all areas.
There is some research on this problem, Kruger and Dunning's Unskilled and Unaware of It:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
As to polymath's frequency though...
True polymaths are probably so rare that even the most seasoned and well-connected academic won't meet one.
Since I know several personally, and know of more, I suspect that well-connected academics have met way more than one--even though polymaths don't necessarily go into traditional academia. Knowing their rarity is intriguing though, if you have some cites.
The phrase for this is "stereotype threat." It's real, there's nothing funny about it; serious and humorless is the better approach. I recently caught myself making a sexual distinction even while pointing out the false generalization of a particular nationality distinction. Stereotypes are insidious; if you're laughing it off, you're a bigot.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...
It's easy and fairly cheap to treat exposure (including land) if you know about the contamination.
The Hanford cleanup is neither easy nor cheap, and the contamination is well known.
Misunderstanding perhaps, since I was supplying a reference which supported your informative comment. Tofof calling your version of the Philippines' history "laughably wrong" is itself laughably, or rather sadly, misinformed.
Cite which supports the above interpretation: Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow. GP's post is largely false and mimics the US Government's official interpretation of events, which has little to do with how the Philippine population was treated.
First - the internet doesn't immediately rank as a survival item. Not even close. BUT I agree with your point that it should be very close after satisfying those needs.
For varying ranges of "close." ;D
And to those in power that's a dangerous thing. And until we fix the system (not likely any time soon) you will see them clamp down and clamp down hard on anything they consider a threat to their nice cushy positions.
If history is an indication, the "fix" has no ending but is instead immersing onself in an ongoing struggle. The greedy rich never stop being greedy; oh they miss opportunities once in a while but they don't give up their longterm self-interests. Just as the poor, despite setbacks, continue to make life better, and eventually more fair, for their family, friends, and neighbors.
NK is not alone in funding a military industrial complex instead of providing people with the basics of a good life .
See, this is the basic problem with liberals. They do not understand the basic foundations of any other viewpoint. It has been demonstrated in many studies - conservatives can pass a "Turing test" and pretend to be a believable liberal; Liberals cannot pass the same test pretending to be conservatives. (In my opinion, because once you understand the conservative argument it is difficult not to agree with it.)
Without a reliable cite, it's hard to believe the "many studies" are accurate or useful, or even very interesting. If an herbalist can fake being a chemist, but the chemist can't fake being a herbalist, do you really want to believe the herbalist is superior?
The intriguing fact is how easily conservatives agree with, or believe, their own argument. According to When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions (pdf), political people, notably conservatives, are quite susceptible to "motivated reasoning." This states that when confronted with a reality opposed to their views, conservatives become even more convinced of their indoctrination. Which goes some way toward explaining your opinion that "once you understand the conservative argument it is difficult not to agree with it." Conservatives will be inclined to dismiss this study, since it's based on science, which they trust less than their dogma.
Liberals, meanwhile, enjoy the catchy phrase "reality has a liberal bias." Confirmed somewhat by these studies: Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War (2003), and Misinformation and the 2010 Election (pdf).
Though the argument should be made that being conservative or liberal are not the only 2 choices. For example there are people who find that science, facts, evidence, and fairness should largely influence political decisions.
At a yard sale, homemade DVDs and VHS tapes typically end up in the free box, while used retail versions are $1 to $5. I suspect copies of money would be much the same.
Why is it always an "us" vs. "them" scenario? What happens if I, a lowly geek, eventually through career progression and knowing the right people, finds myself in a position of corporate power? Will you come after me too? I'm aware of the (correctly-quoted) saying "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but just going after those in power just because they ARE in power seems foolish. Not everyone in power is a dick. I admit the list of those who aren't is extraordinary low but still...[emphasis added]
And that there is why; answered by a trustworthy source, your own experience. (And I look forward to trusting you as your career progresses, as you start hanging with the right people, as those right people decide you demonstrate profitable corporate power skills.)
Properly done. No it won't. Incorrectly done, there's the chance it will. If you think the rock formations are the same all the way down, you're fooling yourself.
You can read the article two ways, one is to accept the author's slant, the other is for facts and make your own assessment. If you read only the first paragraph, then the whole problem is improperly followed procedures. If you read the whole article for facts, you'll find statements like this:
"As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate."
So no confirmed cases, according to this study, but contamination is a significant risk. What requirements are there for "confirmed," and what about the study itself? Read to the bottom of the article and you'll find it was performed by a school that gets some portion of research funds from "three or four large energy companies." With one large energy company, named in a current fracturing-related lawsuit in Texas, partially funding a follow-up study at the same school. Is an energy company going to invest in a friendly, independent, or hostile institute to do its research? You'll perhaps understand a careful reader being sceptical of the conclusions.
Fracturing the earth around gas and water with unknown chemicals is currently and frequently being incorrectly done. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
And I'm sure you're also going on about that BS movie where people were lighting their taps on fire, but guess what, people were doing that before. Hell there's places around me where that's possible from naturally occurring methane in the water. Mostly well water, and you need to back pressure it in your well. Really though, next I'm sure you'll go on a rant about how the tar sands are evil. But gloss over the fact that oil has been leeching into the rivers in Canada for thousands of years. Hell, there's enough oil leeching naturally that people used to(and still do) patch their boats with it.
So you're saying that hydraulically fracturing the ground around oil and pumping in proprietary chemical mixtures, in addition to the natural leeching, can't increase the methane and chemical pollutants in your drinking water over time?
IMHO, blaming the scientists is fucking absurd. I think that of the people indicted in this mess, the only one who is at fault is the politician. The most guilty people in this are the idiots who took action concerning their own safety based on their interpretation of what a politician said and against their better instincts.
Saying the only one at fault is the politician, but the most guilty are the idiot people, doesn't really make sense. And suggesting people should trust their instincts above what they perceived to be a scientist's report is risky territory. Though knowing when to distrust a politician gets easier with age.
To simplify a lot: people act on instincts, experience, news, and many other notions. Profitable news edits quotes from politicians. Politicians edit reports from scientists. Scientists produce reports based on analysis of current and historical data. Scientist's analysis depends on instincts, education, and research news. Data is subject to human and machine interpretation. There are several opportunities for idiocy. Guessing the percentage of responsibility for each of those opportunities is, apparently, the goal of the court case.
Not really a disagreement, but (in addition to executive and shareholder profits) insurance rates in the US are already based on driver habits. Car owners who get in a relatively large number of accidents or get too many speeding violations have their rates raised. What then does GPS monitoring do for rates? It gives the insurance company another reason to raise rates and has a chilling effect on driving habits. Someone is always looking over your shoulder and writing down your actions and locations as you go about your life. This is an invasion of privacy, the arguments for which are well known.
Going to visit your friend who lives beside an insurance scammer or meth dealer? Should you really dodge that dog in the road? Will you be paying for those decisions for years?
Or its newer variants. Loaded with OpenWRT, there's nothing you can't do with them. Newer variants have even more flash and RAM.
Except (some of?) the newer variants, particularly the Netgear WNDR-3700 version 3 with the Broadcom chipset, do not run OpenWRT. Yet.
He didn't stay there for too long because of big business.
Let's see, in 1991 Aristide was president for 8 months before a CIA-backed coup d'etat. Then for 1.5 years starting in 1995. Then another 4 years starting in 2001, until he was kidnapped by the US in 2004. So he was president for about 6 years total.
Your point is well made though, big business and the US government didn't give up just because a grassroots person got elected. Not giving up appears to be a key to success. Including secretive copyright extensions.
Haiti allowed Aristide to be elected, in spite of the media and big business. Bolivia allowed Morales to be elected, in spite of the media and big business. If those two countries can elect a people's candidate, the US can. Believing big business "will never allow" something is indoctrination.