I've been in environments where non-sexual nudity was not uncommon (plenty of folks wore clothes, but sometimes didn't), and it really turns into not a big deal pretty quickly. As one of the female-type people put it: "Some guys really want to know what I look like naked. That's easy - I look like me, but without any clothes on." And she was absolutely right, because among other things anyone who sees a clothed woman can pretty well figure out what she'll look like naked.
Sexiness doesn't come from what you're wearing, or not. It comes from what you're doing. That's why most strippers don't just take off their clothes, they do all sorts of dancing.
Right, that makes you (as a hypothetical congresscritter) somebody likely to be targeted by this tactic.
Of course, the other problem you'd have is that by quoting Eugene Debs you've declared yourself to be too left-wing to be considered "electable" in the US. (Which is another way of saying that you might have a dangerous and subversive tendency to serve the 99% of Americans who don't run the government.)
The best part is that these European countries (and the Germans in particular, which is probably what GP is thinking of) are probably not the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history. It's one of the two giant blind spots in what typically passes for US history, but what would you call it if a group of people had their population go from over 20 million to 2 million due to a sustained deliberate national policy?
It's not limited to hyping Apple. Often, it's hyping Facebook, or hyping Google, or hyping some random company that I'm pretty sure is cheating to get voted up in the Firehose.
It would be interesting to just start tagging all of them as "advert" (since that's what they are) and see what percentage got that tag.
Ah yes, the good old "poison pill" tactic, used most commonly against one of those naive representatives who thinks their job is to protect the public and represent their views in government.
Here's how it works: 1. Create a bill or resolution that is obviously a positive thing, we'll say "Resolution to Support Motherhood and Apple Pie". 2. Sneak in an amendment in that is obviously horrible, say "let's kill puppies for fun". 3. Whichever way the representative votes, he loses: if he votes Aye, then the ads will blare "Smith voted to kill puppies". If he votes Nay, then the ads will blare "Smith hates motherhood and apple pie".
You can also do this the other way around: create a bill with horrible stuff in it, and try to force its passage by adding a motherhood and apple pie amendment.
Amazing how Congress will avoid paying for laws that protect consumers and are more than willing to pay for ANY other law that protects the interests of the top 5%.
Actually, given the state of the US political system, I would be more surprised if it were the other way around.
Also interesting reading - economist Joe Stiglitz on Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% about exactly how untenable the situation really is.
That's nothing - a lot of conservatives, once in power, spend a lot of time and effort trying to force the government's clutches right into every uterus in their jurisdiction. They've been attempting to do so for decades, with varying degrees of success.
The difference is that the Democrats make a pretense of hiding the fact that they're screwing you over, while the Republicans tell you up front that they're screwing you and know you like it despite your protestations to the contrary.
Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens... Thus educated, they will invent for themselves any lesser rules which their predecessors have altogether neglected.
What do you mean?
I mean such things as these:--when the young are to be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me?
Yes.
But there is, I think, small wisdom in legislating about such matters,-- I doubt if it is ever done; nor are any precise written enactments about them likely to be lasting.
The other reason for learning basic cooking: It saves the single male a ton of cash. Home-cooked meals are easily $5-10 cheaper than the same meal made by a restaurant. That might not seem like a lot, but $20 a day over a year is $7,300. It's one thing to make the choice to spend that kind of money because you really like Chipotle or something, it's another thing entirely to make that choice because you don't know of any good alternatives.
That breakdown is totally insane. The idea that they paid the actual people who did the work a million dollars? Ludicrous. Maybe $100,000.
I said the 10 people that did the work collectively cost $1 million. That's about $85K per person for salary and benefits + $15K for office space, hardware, etc.
Although US economic strength has been attributed in part to high levels of education, the workforce is lagging in the percentage of younger workers with college degrees, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
That statement is borderline nonsense. The US has more younger college grads running around now than it ever had previously. The trouble is that the economy is so lousy that well over 30% of them are not employing their education in their professional careers. Why would anyone (without some sort of political agenda) describe that situation as a shortage of educated workers?
If I were going to name 2 math topics that everyone should have to study before graduating high school, it would be statistics, and personal finance.
If you don't know statistics, you can easily be fooled. For instance, you might think that "$4 trillion over 10 years" is a bigger amount of money than "$400 billion per year" (and actually, it's probably a smaller amount really due to inflation, but we'll ignore that for now). Or you might think that if a poll says 30% oppose a measure, then it necessarily has the support of the majority of the public.
Similarly, if you don't know personal finance, you're also easily fooled. For instance, you might when signing a loan agreement focus more on the size of the monthly payment than you do on the interest rate, so you won't notice that you're paying tons of interest but never paying down principle. Or you might not realize that a credit card is a loan at a terrible interest rate. etc. etc.
Algebra II, as the second year of algebra in most US secondary schools, focuses most heavily on studying polynomial functions, with topics like finding zero points, inflection points, intersections with other functions, factoring of cubic and higher-order expressions, and locating asymptotes. There's sometimes some discussion of exponential and logarithmic functions as well, although those often wait for the trigonometry course.
A typical college-bound US student would study algebra I in their 8th or 9th year of school, followed by geometry (usually basic Euclidian stuff, but also introduces the concept of mathematical proof), followed by algebra II, followed by trigonometry, followed by an introductory calculus course if time allows.
Especially since in this case there's good reason to think that the folks proposing this have it precisely backwards: Any student who is seen as being college material will be pushed to take Algebra II and do well in it, whereas any student who is seen as being burger-flipper material will be pushed towards more vocational classes. So it's not so much a predictor of future college-level success as it is an indicator of some other predictors being present.
Most of those other predictors are well-known:
- educational level of the kid's parents
- income level of the kid's parents
- disciplinary issues or lack thereof
- sports or band participation
- grades prior to high school (although they aren't as much of a predictor as you might think)
- after-school activities, clubs, etc.
If you fight in order to bring about the imposition of an oppressive theocracy, you are not a freedom fighter. If you generally avoid targeting civilians, you are not a terrorist.
What if you fight in order to oppose an oppressive theocracy, but you do target civilians (who maybe are connected to the oppressive theocracy but not actually part of their military forces)? That's not an idle question, because US aerial drone attacks have done precisely that in Pakistan and Yemen.
Similarly, what if you aren't targeting civilians, but are fighting for the imposition of an oppressive theocracy? Again, not an idle question, when you consider that many of the Iraqi insurgent attacks on US troops fall into this category.
It's not that I have no morals at all, it's that I judge actions in a way that doesn't neatly divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", and don't assume that everything that good guys do is good and everything that bad guys do is bad.
That only means that I tend to differentiate the terms the same way I just described.
For instance, I'd be relatively inclined to refer to the Libyan rebels as freedom fighters, since they're the product of a failed attempt at peaceful overthrow of a dictator. But somebody who supported Qaddafi would probably call these same people terrorists. Similarly, I'd generally call Osama bin Laden a terrorist, but he would no doubt consider himself a freedom fighter trying to defend his lands against the evil United States.
That's not at all consistent with how the word "terrorist" has actually been used.
Some recent attacks generally considered to be "terrorist attacks": Bombing the US Embassy in Nairobi (government target) Shooting rockets at the USS Cole (military target) Shooting at Fort Hood (military base) Hamas bombing Israeli checkpoints (military / government target)
By contrast, these are not generally considered terrorism, even though they would meet your definition: US drone attacks on apartment complexes in Yemen and Pakistan Columbine school shooting
The army of robots, after confirming the destruction of AF447, celebrated their victory today, decorating Unit 00110110 with the Metal of Honor. Their leader, Unit 10001101, was reported as saying "Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?"
The only difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" is that a freedom fighter is on the same side as the speaker, while a terrorist is on the other side.
Similar rules apply to the difference between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation", and a host of other terms regularly used in news and politics.
so all we need to do is convince the government to smoke weed.
Judging by what passes for political debate and decisionmaking these days, I think it's safe to say that they already do, along with just about every other mind-altering substance out there.
However, you should also realize that the corollary to Nixon's theory of crime is that when your average Joe does what the government just did, it's still illegal.
I should point out that the NYT Paywall is apparently a much more complex beast than a simple "pay up to see the articles". What they're trying to do is allow search engines, Twitter, and other social media to drive traffic to them, but at the same time not allow people to regularly read their content for free.
My guess as to the approximate cost breakdown: - consulting fees to convince the top brass to go along with this plan even though the last attempt failed miserably: $20 million - project management and business analysis: $10 million - profits for the purchase manager's brother-in-law's IT contracting firm: $9 million - 8 developers and 2 testers to do the actual work: $1 million - Watching online readership plummet again: Priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been in environments where non-sexual nudity was not uncommon (plenty of folks wore clothes, but sometimes didn't), and it really turns into not a big deal pretty quickly. As one of the female-type people put it: "Some guys really want to know what I look like naked. That's easy - I look like me, but without any clothes on." And she was absolutely right, because among other things anyone who sees a clothed woman can pretty well figure out what she'll look like naked.
Sexiness doesn't come from what you're wearing, or not. It comes from what you're doing. That's why most strippers don't just take off their clothes, they do all sorts of dancing.
Right, that makes you (as a hypothetical congresscritter) somebody likely to be targeted by this tactic.
Of course, the other problem you'd have is that by quoting Eugene Debs you've declared yourself to be too left-wing to be considered "electable" in the US. (Which is another way of saying that you might have a dangerous and subversive tendency to serve the 99% of Americans who don't run the government.)
The best part is that these European countries (and the Germans in particular, which is probably what GP is thinking of) are probably not the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history. It's one of the two giant blind spots in what typically passes for US history, but what would you call it if a group of people had their population go from over 20 million to 2 million due to a sustained deliberate national policy?
It's not limited to hyping Apple. Often, it's hyping Facebook, or hyping Google, or hyping some random company that I'm pretty sure is cheating to get voted up in the Firehose.
It would be interesting to just start tagging all of them as "advert" (since that's what they are) and see what percentage got that tag.
compares Facebook to having a bellybutton
What, that they both enable naval-gazing?
Ah yes, the good old "poison pill" tactic, used most commonly against one of those naive representatives who thinks their job is to protect the public and represent their views in government.
Here's how it works:
1. Create a bill or resolution that is obviously a positive thing, we'll say "Resolution to Support Motherhood and Apple Pie".
2. Sneak in an amendment in that is obviously horrible, say "let's kill puppies for fun".
3. Whichever way the representative votes, he loses: if he votes Aye, then the ads will blare "Smith voted to kill puppies". If he votes Nay, then the ads will blare "Smith hates motherhood and apple pie".
You can also do this the other way around: create a bill with horrible stuff in it, and try to force its passage by adding a motherhood and apple pie amendment.
Amazing how Congress will avoid paying for laws that protect consumers and are more than willing to pay for ANY other law that protects the interests of the top 5%.
Actually, given the state of the US political system, I would be more surprised if it were the other way around.
Also interesting reading - economist Joe Stiglitz on Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% about exactly how untenable the situation really is.
That's nothing - a lot of conservatives, once in power, spend a lot of time and effort trying to force the government's clutches right into every uterus in their jurisdiction. They've been attempting to do so for decades, with varying degrees of success.
The difference is that the Democrats make a pretense of hiding the fact that they're screwing you over, while the Republicans tell you up front that they're screwing you and know you like it despite your protestations to the contrary.
Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens ... Thus educated, they will invent for themselves any lesser rules which their predecessors have altogether neglected.
What do you mean?
I mean such things as these:--when the young are to be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me?
Yes.
But there is, I think, small wisdom in legislating about such matters,-- I doubt if it is ever done; nor are any precise written enactments about them likely to be lasting.
Socrates complaining about Kids These Days.
The other reason for learning basic cooking: It saves the single male a ton of cash. Home-cooked meals are easily $5-10 cheaper than the same meal made by a restaurant. That might not seem like a lot, but $20 a day over a year is $7,300. It's one thing to make the choice to spend that kind of money because you really like Chipotle or something, it's another thing entirely to make that choice because you don't know of any good alternatives.
That was way too long! Your entire post can be summed up in 4 words:
"Nice guys finish fast"
That breakdown is totally insane. The idea that they paid the actual people who did the work a million dollars? Ludicrous. Maybe $100,000.
I said the 10 people that did the work collectively cost $1 million. That's about $85K per person for salary and benefits + $15K for office space, hardware, etc.
Sure, knock yourself out. Legally, consider it public domain.
Although US economic strength has been attributed in part to high levels of education, the workforce is lagging in the percentage of younger workers with college degrees, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
That statement is borderline nonsense. The US has more younger college grads running around now than it ever had previously. The trouble is that the economy is so lousy that well over 30% of them are not employing their education in their professional careers. Why would anyone (without some sort of political agenda) describe that situation as a shortage of educated workers?
If I were going to name 2 math topics that everyone should have to study before graduating high school, it would be statistics, and personal finance.
If you don't know statistics, you can easily be fooled. For instance, you might think that "$4 trillion over 10 years" is a bigger amount of money than "$400 billion per year" (and actually, it's probably a smaller amount really due to inflation, but we'll ignore that for now). Or you might think that if a poll says 30% oppose a measure, then it necessarily has the support of the majority of the public.
Similarly, if you don't know personal finance, you're also easily fooled. For instance, you might when signing a loan agreement focus more on the size of the monthly payment than you do on the interest rate, so you won't notice that you're paying tons of interest but never paying down principle. Or you might not realize that a credit card is a loan at a terrible interest rate. etc. etc.
Algebra II, as the second year of algebra in most US secondary schools, focuses most heavily on studying polynomial functions, with topics like finding zero points, inflection points, intersections with other functions, factoring of cubic and higher-order expressions, and locating asymptotes. There's sometimes some discussion of exponential and logarithmic functions as well, although those often wait for the trigonometry course.
A typical college-bound US student would study algebra I in their 8th or 9th year of school, followed by geometry (usually basic Euclidian stuff, but also introduces the concept of mathematical proof), followed by algebra II, followed by trigonometry, followed by an introductory calculus course if time allows.
Especially since in this case there's good reason to think that the folks proposing this have it precisely backwards: Any student who is seen as being college material will be pushed to take Algebra II and do well in it, whereas any student who is seen as being burger-flipper material will be pushed towards more vocational classes. So it's not so much a predictor of future college-level success as it is an indicator of some other predictors being present.
Most of those other predictors are well-known:
- educational level of the kid's parents
- income level of the kid's parents
- disciplinary issues or lack thereof
- sports or band participation
- grades prior to high school (although they aren't as much of a predictor as you might think)
- after-school activities, clubs, etc.
If you fight in order to bring about the imposition of an oppressive theocracy, you are not a freedom fighter. If you generally avoid targeting civilians, you are not a terrorist.
What if you fight in order to oppose an oppressive theocracy, but you do target civilians (who maybe are connected to the oppressive theocracy but not actually part of their military forces)? That's not an idle question, because US aerial drone attacks have done precisely that in Pakistan and Yemen.
Similarly, what if you aren't targeting civilians, but are fighting for the imposition of an oppressive theocracy? Again, not an idle question, when you consider that many of the Iraqi insurgent attacks on US troops fall into this category.
It's not that I have no morals at all, it's that I judge actions in a way that doesn't neatly divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", and don't assume that everything that good guys do is good and everything that bad guys do is bad.
That only means that I tend to differentiate the terms the same way I just described.
For instance, I'd be relatively inclined to refer to the Libyan rebels as freedom fighters, since they're the product of a failed attempt at peaceful overthrow of a dictator. But somebody who supported Qaddafi would probably call these same people terrorists. Similarly, I'd generally call Osama bin Laden a terrorist, but he would no doubt consider himself a freedom fighter trying to defend his lands against the evil United States.
That's not at all consistent with how the word "terrorist" has actually been used.
Some recent attacks generally considered to be "terrorist attacks":
Bombing the US Embassy in Nairobi (government target)
Shooting rockets at the USS Cole (military target)
Shooting at Fort Hood (military base)
Hamas bombing Israeli checkpoints (military / government target)
By contrast, these are not generally considered terrorism, even though they would meet your definition:
US drone attacks on apartment complexes in Yemen and Pakistan
Columbine school shooting
The army of robots, after confirming the destruction of AF447, celebrated their victory today, decorating Unit 00110110 with the Metal of Honor. Their leader, Unit 10001101, was reported as saying "Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?"
The only difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" is that a freedom fighter is on the same side as the speaker, while a terrorist is on the other side.
Similar rules apply to the difference between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation", and a host of other terms regularly used in news and politics.
so all we need to do is convince the government to smoke weed.
Judging by what passes for political debate and decisionmaking these days, I think it's safe to say that they already do, along with just about every other mind-altering substance out there.
However, you should also realize that the corollary to Nixon's theory of crime is that when your average Joe does what the government just did, it's still illegal.
I should point out that the NYT Paywall is apparently a much more complex beast than a simple "pay up to see the articles". What they're trying to do is allow search engines, Twitter, and other social media to drive traffic to them, but at the same time not allow people to regularly read their content for free.
My guess as to the approximate cost breakdown:
- consulting fees to convince the top brass to go along with this plan even though the last attempt failed miserably: $20 million
- project management and business analysis: $10 million
- profits for the purchase manager's brother-in-law's IT contracting firm: $9 million
- 8 developers and 2 testers to do the actual work: $1 million
- Watching online readership plummet again: Priceless.