BTW if you wanna know why the market is such a fucking mess you can blame Ronnie Raygun for forcing the retirement funds of the entire nation to be pumped into the market via 401K and 403B. Remember this next time somebody on the right says putting social security into the market would be a good thing.
Oh man, my brother in law used to be on that kick. Thought it was a great idea to put Social Security into the market. Think of the returns, he said! I replied that we already have 401k's and IRA's that can be in the market if we want those returns, and the fact that SS was not in the market was actually a good thing. When the market tanked in 2008, I asked him again if he thought putting SS in the market was a good idea. Not so much then!
In 2010 the new Web was all about "user generated content". Today, the modern mantra is: "Don't read the comments"
Reviews and review sites have almost exactly the same problems as comment sections: there is no way to filter the ignorant and/or malicious from the informed and sincere. Case in point: there are currently exactly two reviews of my book on Amazon. One from a reasonably thoughtful reader (3 stars) and one from a troll who apparently has given Charles Dickens the same rating as me (2 stars).
There was a five-star review which was from someone who had read the book and genuinely liked it, but Amazon determined it was from someone I knew (likely because I bought her a book on the site a few years ago) and removed the review. This is a ridiculous practice--it would invalidate a huge number of reviews in traditional publications--but is made necessary by authors who try to game the review system in the stupidest possible way.
What do you think about something like Angie's List? As I understand it, you have to be a paying member to rate service providers which is supposed to make the reviews more trustworthy. I don't subscribe to the site though so I don't know exactly what it's like.
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
The CIA was about having an American intelligence agency suitable to face the challenge of the Cold War: the enormously powerful and dangerous Communist bloc lead by the nuclear armed Soviet Union which was further fortified by the Warsaw Pact nations, Communist China, and the growing number of Communist insurgencies across the world. Trying to explain the CIA as "making the world safe for American business" is silly.
The Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century in all manner of cruel tortures, executions, forced starvations, and many other crimes against humanity. Why wouldn't countries want to prevent that from befalling their people? Of course! The real danger is "Wall Street bankers and lawyers!" Please.
Well, you will notice I said they did things other than protect American business interests. That is not their only function, of course. They have a broad range of activities, I'm sure. I am aware of the Cold War, as well.
However, it is not in any way silly to suggest that the CIA does in fact try to make the world safe for American industry. If that were not the case, why did they assist a coup in Iran after President Mosaddegh moved to nationalize the oil industry, taking business away from Western oil companies? Why did they assist a coup in Guatemala when the government there wanted to reclaim land owned by United Fruit? Why did they assist a coup in Honduras when they tried to increase their minimum wage? Ever hear of John Perkins? He has some interesting things to say about what he did on behalf of the CIA and World Bank.
This is all a matter of record. I don't really think it is controversial to say that the CIA protects and advances US business interests. They could do that and fight Communism at the same time. It's not an either/or situation, as you portray it. In fact, from a certain point of view, they dovetail nicely.
And yes, the real danger is in fact Wall Street bankers and lawyers. But that's a different discussion.
If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.
That paranoia fuels some of the worst excesses, like universal monitoring, or toppling democracies that might potentially ally with other nations.
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
That's true, and I was being a little facetious. But a driving force behind the globalization movement is the ability to take advantage of much lower wages in poorer countries to avoid higher labor costs in wealthier countries. If you look at what is legal in those poorer countries, it's not too far from forced or sweatshop labor.
And this is news how? There's a reason our tech products are so cheap and it's not because the robots are making them (which is what will inevitably happen, just not yet)
I thought it was because I signed a two-year contract!
I blame the dealerships too. The last time I went shopping for a car, I told the salesman I was looking to replace my Chevy Malibu, and wanted something small to midize that was good in the snow. Despite the bevy of options on the lot, he walked me over to a Challenger SRT... a rear-wheel drive boat that most likely isn't even particularly good in the rain.
Oh come on. It's only got 475 pound feet of torque. It'll be great in the snow!;-)
The problem with a conspiracy theorist is that all available evidence will be viewed in whatever way is possible to support their beliefs, and any evidence that contradicts it will be dismissed as fabricated or lies. The result is that it is not possible to have a real discussion or debate with them since the purpose of such interactions can never occur given that their beliefs can never be changed. I am not sure what the true story is in regards to what Snowden did or did not complain about, but Ready, Fire, and maybe then think about Aim, is the wrong way to debate it, and makes the presenter look foolish.
Good points. Personally, it does not matter to me whether or not Mr. Snowden tried to raise concerns internally before going to the press. That's because I do not expect that he would have gotten much traction internally, and likely would have made himself suspicious to his superiors in the process. He certainly could not have had the impact he has had by going through the chain of command. He has done more of a public service than he could have by reporting internally.
agreed.. and p.s. the government IS (and has been) bankrupt.. it just isn't yet entirely insolvent.
The US government can print it's own currency. Therefore it cannot go bankrupt. It can choose not to pay it's obligations (which would be foolish), but it cannot run out of money.
"Then TOR will be wrapped by a VPN service, and Comcast will be fscked."
Let's not forget that rights holders are already calling for VPN users to be assumed to be criminals. So it's far from impossible that what they're doing for TOR now, they may do for VPNs later. Sure they would have to have some sort of system to allow "approved" VPN connections, so that people who need them for work wouldn't be screwed, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Anything's possible, especially when corporate profits are at stake. But preventing people from using VPN's seems like it would be tough in practice; not from a technological standpoint, but from a practical one. So many businesses use VPN for so much, blocking it would be a real issue. The BBC can say they want every VPN user to be considered a copyright infringer, but VPN has so may legitimate (and at this point, necessary) uses that making that argument in any serious way would be difficult.
... There is no debt crisis. It's not even that no one is ever going to pay it. It's that the US can print its own money. It is not like state governments or a household. It has the capacity for infinite dollars. It will always be able to pay its debts.
So yes, we have plenty of money for science. We have plenty of money for everything. It is only political decisions that affect funding.
Great. Let's print $10000000000000000000 of money and save the world.
Yeah, ya can't just do that. Though that is a frequent response to the idea that we have unlimited money. The reason you can't is that you'll get massive inflation. The money supply can't increase faster than GDP or you'll get inflation. Sometimes inflation is desirable, BTW.
Funny story though: Since 2008 the Fed has tripled the money supply. Tripled! There are now three times as many dollars in existence than there were 7 years ago. The inflation hasn't materialized as much as some would think, for various reasons. I don't know entirely why myself. But the Fed's action is an example of how we have as much money as we want. It's really a matter of distribution. That's why I say these are political decisions, not financial ones. After the crash in 2008, the government could have given people money to pay off part of the loans on their underwater homes, thereby avoiding the devaluation of the CDO securities. But instead they bought a lot of the securities based on those loans, which cratered in value, at their peak prices. They bailed out the banks while leaving borrowers to be foreclosed on. Political decisions.
These days the capitalist system is doing a pretty good job of discrediting itself. Any economic system that manifestly cannot provide a decent living standard for the majority of the population is a failed system, IMO.
The debt is just a number that various groups start throwing at each other when they don't get their way. It means almost nothing in the real world, as no one is ever going to pay it. We have plenty of money to fund science. We just don't want to, apparently.
This is true, and bears repeating. There is no debt crisis. It's not even that no one is ever going to pay it. It's that the US can print its own money. It is not like state governments or a household. It has the capacity for infinite dollars. It will always be able to pay its debts.
So yes, we have plenty of money for science. We have plenty of money for everything. It is only political decisions that affect funding.
You'd have more of a point if the US wasn't so often concerned with the domestic policies of other nations.
Do we get concerned about domestic policies in other nations that are harboring American-murdering terrorists (and to a lesser extent those that murder our allies)? You bet your ass. Do we give a shit about Poland? Not so much.
LOL. Look at the drug laws in many other countries, and then find out how they got that way.
You know, cellular networks use radio, folks. When you're transmitting electromagnetic radiation using the fabric of spacetime as your communications medium, it becomes rather quite difficult to prevent interception. Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.
If you had bothered to RTFA, you'd know that these systems turn off encryption, unbeknownst to the user.
It was a gigantic pile of legislation - so big it looked like it had to have been ready to go on 9/10 - and was passed and signed in alarmingly little time, almost without debate or dissent. At least that's the way it seemed at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW if you wanna know why the market is such a fucking mess you can blame Ronnie Raygun for forcing the retirement funds of the entire nation to be pumped into the market via 401K and 403B. Remember this next time somebody on the right says putting social security into the market would be a good thing.
Oh man, my brother in law used to be on that kick. Thought it was a great idea to put Social Security into the market. Think of the returns, he said! I replied that we already have 401k's and IRA's that can be in the market if we want those returns, and the fact that SS was not in the market was actually a good thing. When the market tanked in 2008, I asked him again if he thought putting SS in the market was a good idea. Not so much then!
That's what happens when a site becomes too liberal...it becomes full of stupid.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
...and no one knows what to do to fix it.
In 2010 the new Web was all about "user generated content". Today, the modern mantra is: "Don't read the comments"
Reviews and review sites have almost exactly the same problems as comment sections: there is no way to filter the ignorant and/or malicious from the informed and sincere. Case in point: there are currently exactly two reviews of my book on Amazon. One from a reasonably thoughtful reader (3 stars) and one from a troll who apparently has given Charles Dickens the same rating as me (2 stars).
There was a five-star review which was from someone who had read the book and genuinely liked it, but Amazon determined it was from someone I knew (likely because I bought her a book on the site a few years ago) and removed the review. This is a ridiculous practice--it would invalidate a huge number of reviews in traditional publications--but is made necessary by authors who try to game the review system in the stupidest possible way.
What do you think about something like Angie's List? As I understand it, you have to be a paying member to rate service providers which is supposed to make the reviews more trustworthy. I don't subscribe to the site though so I don't know exactly what it's like.
Wow, can you imagine such a place?
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
The CIA was about having an American intelligence agency suitable to face the challenge of the Cold War: the enormously powerful and dangerous Communist bloc lead by the nuclear armed Soviet Union which was further fortified by the Warsaw Pact nations, Communist China, and the growing number of Communist insurgencies across the world. Trying to explain the CIA as "making the world safe for American business" is silly.
The Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century in all manner of cruel tortures, executions, forced starvations, and many other crimes against humanity. Why wouldn't countries want to prevent that from befalling their people? Of course! The real danger is "Wall Street bankers and lawyers!" Please.
The Soviet Story - trailer
Well, you will notice I said they did things other than protect American business interests. That is not their only function, of course. They have a broad range of activities, I'm sure. I am aware of the Cold War, as well.
However, it is not in any way silly to suggest that the CIA does in fact try to make the world safe for American industry. If that were not the case, why did they assist a coup in Iran after President Mosaddegh moved to nationalize the oil industry, taking business away from Western oil companies? Why did they assist a coup in Guatemala when the government there wanted to reclaim land owned by United Fruit? Why did they assist a coup in Honduras when they tried to increase their minimum wage? Ever hear of John Perkins? He has some interesting things to say about what he did on behalf of the CIA and World Bank.
This is all a matter of record. I don't really think it is controversial to say that the CIA protects and advances US business interests. They could do that and fight Communism at the same time. It's not an either/or situation, as you portray it. In fact, from a certain point of view, they dovetail nicely.
And yes, the real danger is in fact Wall Street bankers and lawyers. But that's a different discussion.
Based on past behaviour, I won't believe anything NSA and their buddies say. Anything.
Yeah, pretty much. They have shown themselves to be inveterate bullshitters.
If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.
That paranoia fuels some of the worst excesses, like universal monitoring, or toppling democracies that might potentially ally with other nations.
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
Gf = grandfather, not gf
Heh, I was starting to wonder just how old you are!
I think by sugar substitutes they mean zero-calorie ones, like aspertine (sp). But I didn't RTFA because I wanted second post.
Aspartame
slavery isn't legal anywhere on the planet.
That's true, and I was being a little facetious. But a driving force behind the globalization movement is the ability to take advantage of much lower wages in poorer countries to avoid higher labor costs in wealthier countries. If you look at what is legal in those poorer countries, it's not too far from forced or sweatshop labor.
Globalization has a fringe benefit: you can just make your products in countries where slavery is legal!
(For the uninformed, Malaysia and its neighbor Thailand make the majority of the world's hard drives.)
It's not a fringe benefit; it's a driving force.
And this is news how? There's a reason our tech products are so cheap and it's not because the robots are making them (which is what will inevitably happen, just not yet)
I thought it was because I signed a two-year contract!
Are these the people I'm told we must compete against in a world economy?
I blame the dealerships too. The last time I went shopping for a car, I told the salesman I was looking to replace my Chevy Malibu, and wanted something small to midize that was good in the snow. Despite the bevy of options on the lot, he walked me over to a Challenger SRT ... a rear-wheel drive boat that most likely isn't even particularly good in the rain.
Oh come on. It's only got 475 pound feet of torque. It'll be great in the snow! ;-)
Yeah, but they don't have muffler bearings!
The problem with a conspiracy theorist is that all available evidence will be viewed in whatever way is possible to support their beliefs, and any evidence that contradicts it will be dismissed as fabricated or lies. The result is that it is not possible to have a real discussion or debate with them since the purpose of such interactions can never occur given that their beliefs can never be changed. I am not sure what the true story is in regards to what Snowden did or did not complain about, but Ready, Fire, and maybe then think about Aim, is the wrong way to debate it, and makes the presenter look foolish.
Good points. Personally, it does not matter to me whether or not Mr. Snowden tried to raise concerns internally before going to the press. That's because I do not expect that he would have gotten much traction internally, and likely would have made himself suspicious to his superiors in the process. He certainly could not have had the impact he has had by going through the chain of command. He has done more of a public service than he could have by reporting internally.
agreed.. and p.s. the government IS (and has been) bankrupt.. it just isn't yet entirely insolvent.
The US government can print it's own currency. Therefore it cannot go bankrupt. It can choose not to pay it's obligations (which would be foolish), but it cannot run out of money.
Let me know when the IRS can put you in Gitmo for 13 years without a charge.
They can't literally put you in Guantanamo Bay, but they can fuck you pretty hard.
"Then TOR will be wrapped by a VPN service, and Comcast will be fscked."
Let's not forget that rights holders are already calling for VPN users to be assumed to be criminals. So it's far from impossible that what they're doing for TOR now, they may do for VPNs later. Sure they would have to have some sort of system to allow "approved" VPN connections, so that people who need them for work wouldn't be screwed, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Anything's possible, especially when corporate profits are at stake. But preventing people from using VPN's seems like it would be tough in practice; not from a technological standpoint, but from a practical one. So many businesses use VPN for so much, blocking it would be a real issue. The BBC can say they want every VPN user to be considered a copyright infringer, but VPN has so may legitimate (and at this point, necessary) uses that making that argument in any serious way would be difficult.
... There is no debt crisis. It's not even that no one is ever going to pay it. It's that the US can print its own money. It is not like state governments or a household. It has the capacity for infinite dollars. It will always be able to pay its debts.
So yes, we have plenty of money for science. We have plenty of money for everything. It is only political decisions that affect funding.
Great. Let's print $10000000000000000000 of money and save the world.
Yeah, ya can't just do that. Though that is a frequent response to the idea that we have unlimited money. The reason you can't is that you'll get massive inflation. The money supply can't increase faster than GDP or you'll get inflation. Sometimes inflation is desirable, BTW.
Funny story though: Since 2008 the Fed has tripled the money supply. Tripled! There are now three times as many dollars in existence than there were 7 years ago. The inflation hasn't materialized as much as some would think, for various reasons. I don't know entirely why myself. But the Fed's action is an example of how we have as much money as we want. It's really a matter of distribution. That's why I say these are political decisions, not financial ones. After the crash in 2008, the government could have given people money to pay off part of the loans on their underwater homes, thereby avoiding the devaluation of the CDO securities. But instead they bought a lot of the securities based on those loans, which cratered in value, at their peak prices. They bailed out the banks while leaving borrowers to be foreclosed on. Political decisions.
These days the capitalist system is doing a pretty good job of discrediting itself. Any economic system that manifestly cannot provide a decent living standard for the majority of the population is a failed system, IMO.
The debt is just a number that various groups start throwing at each other when they don't get their way. It means almost nothing in the real world, as no one is ever going to pay it. We have plenty of money to fund science. We just don't want to, apparently.
This is true, and bears repeating. There is no debt crisis. It's not even that no one is ever going to pay it. It's that the US can print its own money. It is not like state governments or a household. It has the capacity for infinite dollars. It will always be able to pay its debts.
So yes, we have plenty of money for science. We have plenty of money for everything. It is only political decisions that affect funding.
You'd have more of a point if the US wasn't so often concerned with the domestic policies of other nations.
Do we get concerned about domestic policies in other nations that are harboring American-murdering terrorists (and to a lesser extent those that murder our allies)? You bet your ass. Do we give a shit about Poland? Not so much.
LOL. Look at the drug laws in many other countries, and then find out how they got that way.
You know, cellular networks use radio, folks. When you're transmitting electromagnetic radiation using the fabric of spacetime as your communications medium, it becomes rather quite difficult to prevent interception. Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.
If you had bothered to RTFA, you'd know that these systems turn off encryption, unbeknownst to the user.
It was a gigantic pile of legislation - so big it looked like it had to have been ready to go on 9/10 - and was passed and signed in alarmingly little time, almost without debate or dissent. At least that's the way it seemed at the time.
That's the way it seems now, too.