I have thought the same thing. But then I remember that it is hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.
Smoking pot makes a person consider the world around them and their own place in it. People with power are automatically opposed to this. The fact smoking pot makes people behave in ways outside those prescribed by their mainstream culture is enough to set people against them.
This is a good point, and one that I don't hear often enough. Consciously or not, those in power do not want people thinking for themselves and analyzing their own situation.
I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that people listen to Limbaugh. In simple terms he has the most listened to radio show. Nothing suggests that people who hear his show actually really listen (as in believe what he says and form opinions based upon it). Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I rather see people listening to him for entertainment value.
I'll introduce you to my cousin. He listens to Rush Limbaugh and clearly forms opinions based on it. That or his own opinions are quite similar to Rush's, and are reinforced by Rush. I don't know specifically, since he and I don't talk politics (nothing good would come of it).
Earlier I watched Piers Morgan interview Jesse Ventura. To my mind both hold views that are somewhat extreme albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum. That might have been the most watched TV show in history (I'm aware it wasn't). It proves little of the views of the people that watched it though.
Also heroin is no worse than caffeine. We allow one and make it available everywhere, the other we do not. We tolerate companies like coca-cola selling addictive products to our children. We should not.
In saying that heroin is no worse than caffeine, I think you need to define "worse".
The law is the law, and if the speed limit is 55 or 60 inside Baltimore City then that's what the drivers should be doing. If they find that objectionable rather than destroy the cameras, they should be lobbying to have the speed increased to 65.
Except that my observation is that almost everyone wants to drive above the speed limit. If almost everyone wants to do something, should it be illegal? Perhaps yes, but I think it's a good question to ask.
Well said but I think if politicians need to release tax records then they all should. Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.
"...when it was originally earned...", by someone else, who also paid the taxes on those earnings. Nice try.
No, every dollar can only be taxed once. It's in the Constitution, don't you know!
The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.
True, but it was also not intended to be a universal identification number. As I understand it, the original intent was that the SSN would be used only for the purposes of Social Security. Opponents warned that it would grow beyond that into what it has become today. So while it is not secret, it should be kept close to the vest, so to speak.
Surveillance is only the ability to see stuff. No-one who knew what freedom was would object to other people seeing things.
But what if the people seeing things don't know what freedom is?
In fact many of the worst evils of our society have come from not seeing things, often from willfully/refusing/ to see them.
You mean like a creeping police state? Sorry, couldn't resist. The thing is that when one is being watched and having their actions scrutinized, they are at the mercy of the person watching, especially when that person has the power of the state behind them. Essentially the person is being judged by another's arbitrary standards. I wouldn't want to live my life with someone looking over my shoulder deciding if what I'm doing is okay or not.
I have heard it said that the difference between propaganda in the USSR and the USA was that the Soviet people recognized it for what it was, while the American public did not. I think that's still largely the case when it comes to the American public.
You know what? Fuck you and your "Blame everything on the West and/or Democracy" attitude. I see you on here all the time posting similar crap, if you spent half your slashdot bitching time reading a history book you wouldn't make such moronic statements. People have been paying people to say crap that isn't strictly true for as long as we've had language and the concept of property ownership.
People have been shilling and lying anonymously since the invention of the written word. I'm willing to bet thousands of years ago some guy painted a picture on a cave wall that showed himself defeating three bears with a fucking knife, when in reality he stumbled across a carcass while fucking the chief's daughter in the bushes.
It was the West who have fine-tuned activities such as being described in TFA to an art-form, in the first place
Oh really? We invented propaganda? We fine-tuned its delivery? Do you have some kind of fundamental mental problem which prevents you from knowing anything about the world prior to the 19th century? Because you sure seem to have a pretty fucking poor grasp on reality.
We have, actually. If you're interested you should read up on Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays. They were early advertising/public relations pioneers in the early 20th century. After the success that was had whipping up the public to support WWI, it was realized that public opinion could be shaped by the use of subtle propaganda. As Bernays said in his 1928 book "Propaganda",
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
So as you can see, he was sort of a proto-technocrat. But his techniques worked to guide people into various opinions and mindsets. These techniques, more refined, are used today by just about anyone who wishes to shape the public mind, whether it be towards a particular product or a political viewpoint. In our own government Cass Sunstein, President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has had quite a bit to say about guiding public opinion. From his Wikipedia page:
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[25] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."
So yes, the USA has made great strides in using propaganda. Though they didn't invent it, as you point out. But I'm always glad when these types of stories come out. Because I think it's important for people to understand and realize that this stuff goes on. Most people are unaware that their opinions are not entirely their own.
We're well on the way already, with a much larger percentage of the population in jail than any other country.
Land of the free, indeed. Sure, freedom of speech except for this, that, and that other, and a few more things. And no guarantee of due process, or a trial at all.
This "freedom" doesn't impress me.
But people here still blindly believe they have the most freedom in the world, and are only willing to see where they have freedom and others don't, but not when it's the other way around. It must be patriotism, because it makes no sense.
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."
-- G. K. Chesterton
It's not patriotism, it's a result of propaganda. We're soaking in it!
But there will likely be plenty of people here who choose to believe the government is routinely and without warrants monitoring private communications on social media -- it will be the same folks who believe that the government is illegally dragnet-wiretapping all Americans while ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests.
Yes, there will be. I am one of them. I believe the government is monitoring social media websites looking for "radicals" of various stripes. They are not, however, ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests. They can monitor both foreign and domestic interests at the same time.
I think this is correct. We are so much more productive now than we were even a few decades ago. American society's needs are overfilled. Surely we could all work a bit less. But that dividend never comes. We are expected to be ever more productive. I have heard co-workers bragging and comparing how many hours they work or how early they come in. I don't get it. Why brag about what a big chump you are?
People seem to forget that things like a 40 hour work week and weekends were fought for by those who came before us. Now people seem to willingly give them away! And it becomes expected that you will work 50 hours or more. It's bullshit. I'm salaried, I don't get paid any more if I work overtime, so why the hell would I do it?
Basically, Apple has the ability to decrypt the data, and all the government needs is a court order to force them to do so. At the same time government officials are deploring their ability to access the data. Three possibilities that I see:
1. The government is attempting to deceive people into storing data where government officials can access it with a court order.
2. Some government officials do not have a problem admitting that they would love to access personal data without a court order, i.e. without probable cause.
3. Some government officials do not mind to supplement their income by advertising for Apple.
I frankly would have no problem with 1), would not be surprised by 3) but suspect the answer is 2)
You have no problem with number 1? A government official trying to deceive people into storing their information where the government can get at it (while believing they are being secure) is okay with you? Why would anyone be okay with being lied to and manipulated by government officials?
It's way better than *average* but in no way better than -all-, there's plenty of people who've driven for decades and never had any accident whatsoever.
If you don't count accidents where someone else is 100% to blame, I've driven for 18 years and never had an accident of any kind. This is rare, but not unheard-of.
Indeed, I have been driving for 24 years and have never been at fault in an accident. I may not have logged 300,000 miles, but I'm probably over 200,000. And personally, they will have to pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands. I know that for many, driving is a chore or at most a means to an end. I really enjoy driving and don't want a computer to do it for me.
There was a scene like that in the movie Dark Star, as I recall. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/ There is a smart bomb that is going to destroy the ship, and one of the crew goes out to talk the bomb out of it.
Yeah, just like the government can stop other things not in the public interest. Is cancer in the public interest? Is death in the public interest? How about crime, is that in the public interest? Or drugs? The government can PRETEND to stop it, but governments can actually do very little except take money from honest men. The day you realize how true this is, you will have gained a lot of insight into both politics and human nature.
If the government can take money from honest men, it should be perfectly within its power to tax financial transactions. Which is just what Shavano was suggesting. Or are you implying that those in finance are not honest men? If so, we are in agreement.
Nobody lost more money in the financial crash then rich people.
First of all, it's than. Second of all, the crash made lots of stuff really cheap, from debt to securities to real estate. If you had the money, you cleaned up after the crash. See how this works?
Slashdot Mirror
I have thought the same thing. But then I remember that it is hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.
Smoking pot makes a person consider the world around them and their own place in it. People with power are automatically opposed to this. The fact smoking pot makes people behave in ways outside those prescribed by their mainstream culture is enough to set people against them.
This is a good point, and one that I don't hear often enough. Consciously or not, those in power do not want people thinking for themselves and analyzing their own situation.
I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that people listen to Limbaugh. In simple terms he has the most listened to radio show. Nothing suggests that people who hear his show actually really listen (as in believe what he says and form opinions based upon it). Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I rather see people listening to him for entertainment value.
I'll introduce you to my cousin. He listens to Rush Limbaugh and clearly forms opinions based on it. That or his own opinions are quite similar to Rush's, and are reinforced by Rush. I don't know specifically, since he and I don't talk politics (nothing good would come of it).
Earlier I watched Piers Morgan interview Jesse Ventura. To my mind both hold views that are somewhat extreme albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum. That might have been the most watched TV show in history (I'm aware it wasn't). It proves little of the views of the people that watched it though.
Also heroin is no worse than caffeine. We allow one and make it available everywhere, the other we do not. We tolerate companies like coca-cola selling addictive products to our children. We should not.
In saying that heroin is no worse than caffeine, I think you need to define "worse".
So, does that mean that even though I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, I'm really not an engineer? My self-image is ruined! ;-)
The law is the law, and if the speed limit is 55 or 60 inside Baltimore City then that's what the drivers should be doing. If they find that objectionable rather than destroy the cameras, they should be lobbying to have the speed increased to 65.
Except that my observation is that almost everyone wants to drive above the speed limit. If almost everyone wants to do something, should it be illegal? Perhaps yes, but I think it's a good question to ask.
Voyeurs and Xzibitionists.
Yo dawg! We heard you like cameras. So we put a camera on your camera, so your camera can watch your camera!
Well said but I think if politicians need to release tax records then they all should. Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.
"...when it was originally earned...", by someone else, who also paid the taxes on those earnings. Nice try.
No, every dollar can only be taxed once. It's in the Constitution, don't you know!
The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.
True, but it was also not intended to be a universal identification number. As I understand it, the original intent was that the SSN would be used only for the purposes of Social Security. Opponents warned that it would grow beyond that into what it has become today. So while it is not secret, it should be kept close to the vest, so to speak.
True, but then they'll only fix it for themselves.
Surveillance is only the ability to see stuff. No-one who knew what freedom was would object to other people seeing things.
But what if the people seeing things don't know what freedom is?
In fact many of the worst evils of our society have come from not seeing things, often from willfully /refusing/ to see them.
You mean like a creeping police state? Sorry, couldn't resist. The thing is that when one is being watched and having their actions scrutinized, they are at the mercy of the person watching, especially when that person has the power of the state behind them. Essentially the person is being judged by another's arbitrary standards. I wouldn't want to live my life with someone looking over my shoulder deciding if what I'm doing is okay or not.
That's the spirit comrade.
I have heard it said that the difference between propaganda in the USSR and the USA was that the Soviet people recognized it for what it was, while the American public did not. I think that's still largely the case when it comes to the American public.
You know what? Fuck you and your "Blame everything on the West and/or Democracy" attitude. I see you on here all the time posting similar crap, if you spent half your slashdot bitching time reading a history book you wouldn't make such moronic statements. People have been paying people to say crap that isn't strictly true for as long as we've had language and the concept of property ownership. People have been shilling and lying anonymously since the invention of the written word. I'm willing to bet thousands of years ago some guy painted a picture on a cave wall that showed himself defeating three bears with a fucking knife, when in reality he stumbled across a carcass while fucking the chief's daughter in the bushes.
It was the West who have fine-tuned activities such as being described in TFA to an art-form, in the first place
Oh really? We invented propaganda? We fine-tuned its delivery? Do you have some kind of fundamental mental problem which prevents you from knowing anything about the world prior to the 19th century? Because you sure seem to have a pretty fucking poor grasp on reality.
We have, actually. If you're interested you should read up on Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays. They were early advertising/public relations pioneers in the early 20th century. After the success that was had whipping up the public to support WWI, it was realized that public opinion could be shaped by the use of subtle propaganda. As Bernays said in his 1928 book "Propaganda",
So as you can see, he was sort of a proto-technocrat. But his techniques worked to guide people into various opinions and mindsets. These techniques, more refined, are used today by just about anyone who wishes to shape the public mind, whether it be towards a particular product or a political viewpoint. In our own government Cass Sunstein, President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has had quite a bit to say about guiding public opinion. From his Wikipedia page:
So yes, the USA has made great strides in using propaganda. Though they didn't invent it, as you point out. But I'm always glad when these types of stories come out. Because I think it's important for people to understand and realize that this stuff goes on. Most people are unaware that their opinions are not entirely their own.
We're well on the way already, with a much larger percentage of the population in jail than any other country.
Land of the free, indeed. Sure, freedom of speech except for this, that, and that other, and a few more things. And no guarantee of due process, or a trial at all. This "freedom" doesn't impress me. But people here still blindly believe they have the most freedom in the world, and are only willing to see where they have freedom and others don't, but not when it's the other way around. It must be patriotism, because it makes no sense.
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." -- G. K. Chesterton
It's not patriotism, it's a result of propaganda. We're soaking in it!
But there will likely be plenty of people here who choose to believe the government is routinely and without warrants monitoring private communications on social media -- it will be the same folks who believe that the government is illegally dragnet-wiretapping all Americans while ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests.
Yes, there will be. I am one of them. I believe the government is monitoring social media websites looking for "radicals" of various stripes. They are not, however, ignoring legitimate foreign intelligence interests. They can monitor both foreign and domestic interests at the same time.
The United States of America. Where the rules are made up and the workers don't matter.
That might be my new sig...
I think this is correct. We are so much more productive now than we were even a few decades ago. American society's needs are overfilled. Surely we could all work a bit less. But that dividend never comes. We are expected to be ever more productive. I have heard co-workers bragging and comparing how many hours they work or how early they come in. I don't get it. Why brag about what a big chump you are?
People seem to forget that things like a 40 hour work week and weekends were fought for by those who came before us. Now people seem to willingly give them away! And it becomes expected that you will work 50 hours or more. It's bullshit. I'm salaried, I don't get paid any more if I work overtime, so why the hell would I do it?
Basically, Apple has the ability to decrypt the data, and all the government needs is a court order to force them to do so. At the same time government officials are deploring their ability to access the data. Three possibilities that I see:
1. The government is attempting to deceive people into storing data where government officials can access it with a court order.
2. Some government officials do not have a problem admitting that they would love to access personal data without a court order, i.e. without probable cause.
3. Some government officials do not mind to supplement their income by advertising for Apple.
I frankly would have no problem with 1), would not be surprised by 3) but suspect the answer is 2)
You have no problem with number 1? A government official trying to deceive people into storing their information where the government can get at it (while believing they are being secure) is okay with you? Why would anyone be okay with being lied to and manipulated by government officials?
It's way better than *average* but in no way better than -all-, there's plenty of people who've driven for decades and never had any accident whatsoever.
If you don't count accidents where someone else is 100% to blame, I've driven for 18 years and never had an accident of any kind. This is rare, but not unheard-of.
Indeed, I have been driving for 24 years and have never been at fault in an accident. I may not have logged 300,000 miles, but I'm probably over 200,000. And personally, they will have to pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands. I know that for many, driving is a chore or at most a means to an end. I really enjoy driving and don't want a computer to do it for me.
There was a scene like that in the movie Dark Star, as I recall. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/ There is a smart bomb that is going to destroy the ship, and one of the crew goes out to talk the bomb out of it.
Most people are expendable to the people who would deploy these weapons.
Well, at least you capitalized your bigoted slur.
Could we go with "warning"?
Yeah, just like the government can stop other things not in the public interest. Is cancer in the public interest? Is death in the public interest? How about crime, is that in the public interest? Or drugs? The government can PRETEND to stop it, but governments can actually do very little except take money from honest men. The day you realize how true this is, you will have gained a lot of insight into both politics and human nature.
If the government can take money from honest men, it should be perfectly within its power to tax financial transactions. Which is just what Shavano was suggesting. Or are you implying that those in finance are not honest men? If so, we are in agreement.
No Bernie did not get lucky. He turned himself in when he thought he could no longer keep it up. He was not caught; he confessed.
It is bullshit though.
Nobody lost more money in the financial crash then rich people.
First of all, it's than. Second of all, the crash made lots of stuff really cheap, from debt to securities to real estate. If you had the money, you cleaned up after the crash. See how this works?