It's worth pointing out that there's a step in between "I'll just go along with it" and "Shoot the tyrants": It's the step of quiet non-compliance and organizing, which the revolutionaries also took before the first shots were fired. The reason there were British troops in Boston is that the British government had no belief that their laws were going to be followed, and by the time they were trying to seriously punish the Bostonians the revolutionaries had about 1/3 of the population on their side. The reason the colonists won at Concord (after losing badly at Lexington) was because they had carefully organized a communications network which meant that word of the British movements was moving much much faster than the army.
An even better more modern example: 20 years ago, no politician would even remotely consider voting for gay marriage or legalizing pot. For better or worse, the public has been slowly swayed in favor of both those positions, and the politicians are getting dragged along. Ditto for equality for African-Americans almost 50 years ago.
In general, the politicians can be expected to stay one step behind the public.
The corporate media does occasionally notice that Johnson and Stein are in the race. For instance, the New York Times actually gave some coverage to Jill Stein, and The Daily Show had a pretty interesting interview with Gary Johnson.
But that's the sad thing: their collective chance of getting serious attention is basically 0. I should also point out that the Greens and Libertarians, despite significant differences in ideology, regularly cooperate on trying to force their way onto ballots and into debates. I was chatting with a local Libertarian congressional candidate, and he talked about how he was coming off of a great debate with his Green counterpart.
Ok, so what's to stop them from doing this? 1. Overcharge everybody $10. 2. Refund anybody who calls up to complain. 3. Profit = $10 * percentage of customers who don't get a refund.
And if you're wondering about the cost of extra customer service reps, why should Evil Inc do anything to make it easy to talk to a rep? Far better to leave the department understaffed, so customers who were going to demand a refund give up after listening to elevator music for 40 minutes interrupted by "Sorry, all representatives are currently busy,"
If Obama is polling at 48% to Romney's 47%, why would that have any effect on your voting decision? More to the point, why are campaigns obsessed with appearing like they're winning?
Intelligence is the ability to figure out how to do something, while wisdom is the ability to figure out if that something was a worthwhile thing to be doing.
For instance, an engineer who helped build bombs for terrorist attacks might have high intelligence but low wisdom. By contrast, somebody who engages in acts of complete futility for a good cause is generally acting from high wisdom but low intelligence.
So tell me then, what is the motivation if it is not for profit? So how do you measure scientific output, how do you figure what scientific paths to pursue?
We're not Ferengi.
A lot of things worth doing aren't profitable. Building a telescope back in the 1600's and staring into the night sky is not the sort of thing that could have been translated into a product - does that mean that we should have never studied astronomy? The American Civil War definitely wasn't won for profits - does that mean we should still have slavery? Most people who get it on with somebody don't get paid to do so - should the only sex involve prostitution? Most people who have children don't do that for money either - how is there a future generation without that? If I see a guy lying in the gutter badly beaten, should I demand payment before taking the time to call an ambulance?
The idea of a class-action lawsuit is ridiculous, unsatisfying nonsense perpetuated by the lawyers who profit from them.
They can be completely legitimate.
Imagine an electric company that overcharges all its customers $10. Now each customer in theory could sue them in small claims to win your $10 but it's probably not worth their time, which means the company would make millions by doing that. What prevents them from just doing that regularly is the risk that somebody will notice the pattern and sue them in a class action all at once rather than each individual having to try to recover their $10 on their own.
It's also worth noting that arbitration clauses not infrequently make it so the corporation decides who the arbiter is. And yes, they tend to choose based on the odds of winning their case. Some courts have been ruling those clauses to be unconscionable though, which renders them null and void depending on where you live.
Despite attempts to depict him otherwise (sometimes by himself!), Romney comes across as a moderately competent political moderate.
I generally consider Mitt Romney to be a thoroughly dishonest political $DEITY-knows-what. These are the only political positions I've actually seen him consistently take: 1. Taxes should be lower, especially on rich people. 2. I'm not Barack Obama. In particular, I'm white.
Everything else seems to me to be up for grabs, and vary from hour to hour depending on who he's talking to.
I'm offended by all of your demands for arrest, and demand that we arrest anybody who demands somebody's arrest just because they're offended!... Err... It's a fair cop.
Depending on where you live, there may be. Look for them and vote for them when you see them. And if you were wrong and they turned out to be an asshole, then stop voting for them and look for other non-assholes to vote for.
And if you're really motivated, try running for something yourself (unless you're an asshole): In many communities it's quite possible to get yourself on the city council or school board by going around and convincing voters one at a time to support you, because it only takes a few hundred votes to win.
That's not quite right, and does a disservice to politicians who actually do give a damn about civil liberties, e.g. Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.
For instance, back in 2002 the Bush administration created the Total Information Awareness project, where the NSA was going to basically intercept all Internet traffic in the US and build profiles of everybody based on what they saw. After years of agitating by the usual suspects (including the ACLU and EFF) Congress defunded the agency.
However, what the NSA appears to have done in response to Congress expressly saying that they shouldn't do this: (1) Rename the program. (2) Make the whole thing classified. (3) Move the budget lineitem to a different spending category. (4) Continue as if nothing had happened. So the problem isn't exactly all politicians being power-hungry bastards, it's that power-hungry presidents (and both Bush and Obama are involved in this, it isn't a partisan thing) can work with a power-hungry national security state to do whatever the heck they want without the approval of Congress.
Nah, no need for any of that. Just bully manufacturers into building a backdoor into their products, include something in the EULA that states that the big 5 media companies can access your device at any time for any reason. No need to spend all that money on lobbyists or deal with that pesky publicity.
Woody Guthrie said that if you're using more than three or four chords in a song you're just showing off.
However, as a counterpoint to that, Arlo Guthrie regularly used more than that. For instance, in "Alice's Restaurant" he uses: G E7 A7 D7 G7 and C with a little hook involving D/F# and D/A a well. Pete Seeger often used more than that too - "Precious Friend" has in it G D7 Eb7 C Em A7 D7 F# E A and D. Folk tunes can be simple, but there's no requirement that they do so.
And the right way to harmonize a lot of traditional music can get more complex: French-Canadian fiddle tunes regularly change keys, there are forms of English traditional dance music that use all the harmonic ideas of Handel and his ilk, etc.
Speaking as somebody who went through music conservatory: 1. There is a slight difference between live performance and recorded performance - the best live performers add different nuances each time they play something, the very top frequency range necessarily gets dropped when you record (although this is hard to hear anyways, so it doesn't make a huge difference), and the acoustics of a concert hall are significantly different from a recording booth.
2. The difference between a CD recording and other recording media is so small that you can't really hear the difference.
3. Most good music sounds good even on a bad recording medium, and most bad music sounds bad even on a great recording medium. For instance, I can enjoy early jazz recordings on wax cylindar, even though the recording is horrible. I can loathe recordings by 'N' Sync even though the recording is spot-on. Even in electronic music, the Dr Who theme sounds great even though it was made by splicing small bits of tape together, while there's thoroughly lousy modern electronica made on the latest and greatest equipment.
So it's not so much music snobbery as it is audiophile stupidity to think it's worth getting worked up over sound quality.
"We believed the hype and got suckered into thinking that Facebook was worth more than it actually was. That must be Mark Zuckerberg's problem, because it can't possibly be *my* problem."
In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.
Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court. Resist as this guy did, gathering evidence and filing appropriate legal claims. That does in fact make a difference for somebody else, while beating up a cop doesn't help anybody.
See a cop interacting with a citizen, film it. If the cops harass you for filming, do your best to call attention to the encounter so that somebody else can film them going after you for filming them. And if the cops go after that guy, help ensure somebody else is filming them do that. Each time you do that, you're either eventually going to have physical evidence of what they're up to, or a steadily increasing pool of witnesses, both of which will help you win in court and actually change the policy and the practice.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth pointing out that there's a step in between "I'll just go along with it" and "Shoot the tyrants": It's the step of quiet non-compliance and organizing, which the revolutionaries also took before the first shots were fired. The reason there were British troops in Boston is that the British government had no belief that their laws were going to be followed, and by the time they were trying to seriously punish the Bostonians the revolutionaries had about 1/3 of the population on their side. The reason the colonists won at Concord (after losing badly at Lexington) was because they had carefully organized a communications network which meant that word of the British movements was moving much much faster than the army.
An even better more modern example: 20 years ago, no politician would even remotely consider voting for gay marriage or legalizing pot. For better or worse, the public has been slowly swayed in favor of both those positions, and the politicians are getting dragged along. Ditto for equality for African-Americans almost 50 years ago.
In general, the politicians can be expected to stay one step behind the public.
Then use sarcasm
My gods, it's Doug Pirhana!
The corporate media does occasionally notice that Johnson and Stein are in the race. For instance, the New York Times actually gave some coverage to Jill Stein, and The Daily Show had a pretty interesting interview with Gary Johnson.
But that's the sad thing: their collective chance of getting serious attention is basically 0. I should also point out that the Greens and Libertarians, despite significant differences in ideology, regularly cooperate on trying to force their way onto ballots and into debates. I was chatting with a local Libertarian congressional candidate, and he talked about how he was coming off of a great debate with his Green counterpart.
Ok, so what's to stop them from doing this?
1. Overcharge everybody $10.
2. Refund anybody who calls up to complain.
3. Profit = $10 * percentage of customers who don't get a refund.
And if you're wondering about the cost of extra customer service reps, why should Evil Inc do anything to make it easy to talk to a rep? Far better to leave the department understaffed, so customers who were going to demand a refund give up after listening to elevator music for 40 minutes interrupted by "Sorry, all representatives are currently busy,"
Bleep you, Frank!
If Obama is polling at 48% to Romney's 47%, why would that have any effect on your voting decision? More to the point, why are campaigns obsessed with appearing like they're winning?
Intelligence is the ability to figure out how to do something, while wisdom is the ability to figure out if that something was a worthwhile thing to be doing.
For instance, an engineer who helped build bombs for terrorist attacks might have high intelligence but low wisdom. By contrast, somebody who engages in acts of complete futility for a good cause is generally acting from high wisdom but low intelligence.
Even better, you can watch the official sport of the summer, dressage!
So tell me then, what is the motivation if it is not for profit? So how do you measure scientific output, how do you figure what scientific paths to pursue?
We're not Ferengi.
A lot of things worth doing aren't profitable. Building a telescope back in the 1600's and staring into the night sky is not the sort of thing that could have been translated into a product - does that mean that we should have never studied astronomy? The American Civil War definitely wasn't won for profits - does that mean we should still have slavery? Most people who get it on with somebody don't get paid to do so - should the only sex involve prostitution? Most people who have children don't do that for money either - how is there a future generation without that? If I see a guy lying in the gutter badly beaten, should I demand payment before taking the time to call an ambulance?
The idea of a class-action lawsuit is ridiculous, unsatisfying nonsense perpetuated by the lawyers who profit from them.
They can be completely legitimate.
Imagine an electric company that overcharges all its customers $10. Now each customer in theory could sue them in small claims to win your $10 but it's probably not worth their time, which means the company would make millions by doing that. What prevents them from just doing that regularly is the risk that somebody will notice the pattern and sue them in a class action all at once rather than each individual having to try to recover their $10 on their own.
It's also worth noting that arbitration clauses not infrequently make it so the corporation decides who the arbiter is. And yes, they tend to choose based on the odds of winning their case. Some courts have been ruling those clauses to be unconscionable though, which renders them null and void depending on where you live.
However, they might crush you without even realizing it.
I mean, I can think of a little company from Albuquerque that ended up doing pretty well for itself.
What I'm hoping for, actually, is that somewhere during the recording session, Bill said this:
We are so cool, we're beyond cool. We are in orbit man.
Despite attempts to depict him otherwise (sometimes by himself!), Romney comes across as a moderately competent political moderate.
I generally consider Mitt Romney to be a thoroughly dishonest political $DEITY-knows-what. These are the only political positions I've actually seen him consistently take:
1. Taxes should be lower, especially on rich people.
2. I'm not Barack Obama. In particular, I'm white.
Everything else seems to me to be up for grabs, and vary from hour to hour depending on who he's talking to.
I'm offended by all of your demands for arrest, and demand that we arrest anybody who demands somebody's arrest just because they're offended! ... Err ... It's a fair cop.
Depending on where you live, there may be. Look for them and vote for them when you see them. And if you were wrong and they turned out to be an asshole, then stop voting for them and look for other non-assholes to vote for.
And if you're really motivated, try running for something yourself (unless you're an asshole): In many communities it's quite possible to get yourself on the city council or school board by going around and convincing voters one at a time to support you, because it only takes a few hundred votes to win.
That's not quite right, and does a disservice to politicians who actually do give a damn about civil liberties, e.g. Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.
For instance, back in 2002 the Bush administration created the Total Information Awareness project, where the NSA was going to basically intercept all Internet traffic in the US and build profiles of everybody based on what they saw. After years of agitating by the usual suspects (including the ACLU and EFF) Congress defunded the agency.
However, what the NSA appears to have done in response to Congress expressly saying that they shouldn't do this: (1) Rename the program. (2) Make the whole thing classified. (3) Move the budget lineitem to a different spending category. (4) Continue as if nothing had happened. So the problem isn't exactly all politicians being power-hungry bastards, it's that power-hungry presidents (and both Bush and Obama are involved in this, it isn't a partisan thing) can work with a power-hungry national security state to do whatever the heck they want without the approval of Congress.
Such subtle tactile input would be very useful for robots designed to interact with people
In other words, this is for sexbots to react more effectively. Now more than ever we need to listen to the Space Pope: Don't Date Robots!
Nah, no need for any of that. Just bully manufacturers into building a backdoor into their products, include something in the EULA that states that the big 5 media companies can access your device at any time for any reason. No need to spend all that money on lobbyists or deal with that pesky publicity.
You should love/hate this without doing anything to analyze it, of course!
Woody Guthrie said that if you're using more than three or four chords in a song you're just showing off.
However, as a counterpoint to that, Arlo Guthrie regularly used more than that. For instance, in "Alice's Restaurant" he uses: G E7 A7 D7 G7 and C with a little hook involving D/F# and D/A a well. Pete Seeger often used more than that too - "Precious Friend" has in it G D7 Eb7 C Em A7 D7 F# E A and D. Folk tunes can be simple, but there's no requirement that they do so.
And the right way to harmonize a lot of traditional music can get more complex: French-Canadian fiddle tunes regularly change keys, there are forms of English traditional dance music that use all the harmonic ideas of Handel and his ilk, etc.
Speaking as somebody who went through music conservatory:
1. There is a slight difference between live performance and recorded performance - the best live performers add different nuances each time they play something, the very top frequency range necessarily gets dropped when you record (although this is hard to hear anyways, so it doesn't make a huge difference), and the acoustics of a concert hall are significantly different from a recording booth.
2. The difference between a CD recording and other recording media is so small that you can't really hear the difference.
3. Most good music sounds good even on a bad recording medium, and most bad music sounds bad even on a great recording medium. For instance, I can enjoy early jazz recordings on wax cylindar, even though the recording is horrible. I can loathe recordings by 'N' Sync even though the recording is spot-on. Even in electronic music, the Dr Who theme sounds great even though it was made by splicing small bits of tape together, while there's thoroughly lousy modern electronica made on the latest and greatest equipment.
So it's not so much music snobbery as it is audiophile stupidity to think it's worth getting worked up over sound quality.
"We believed the hype and got suckered into thinking that Facebook was worth more than it actually was. That must be Mark Zuckerberg's problem, because it can't possibly be *my* problem."
In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.
Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court. Resist as this guy did, gathering evidence and filing appropriate legal claims. That does in fact make a difference for somebody else, while beating up a cop doesn't help anybody.
See a cop interacting with a citizen, film it. If the cops harass you for filming, do your best to call attention to the encounter so that somebody else can film them going after you for filming them. And if the cops go after that guy, help ensure somebody else is filming them do that. Each time you do that, you're either eventually going to have physical evidence of what they're up to, or a steadily increasing pool of witnesses, both of which will help you win in court and actually change the policy and the practice.