The Classical education system is not going to save money on it's own, it's simply a different method of introducing subjects and teaching. Overlapping subjects, such as Trigonometry and Music theory are taught simultaneously, so that people can see and hear what the Trig shows on paper. Algebra is taught with Algebra based Physics, English is taught with Rhetoric and Debate, Logic is taught with History, Sociology, Current/World Events, and classical Philosophy.
Your current budget woes may be a symptom of the current federally mandated education system. How many people are required to handle all of the federally mandated testing at all of the federally mandated times? (most schools are testing 4 times a year, and preparations are a large portion of the in-between time).
Your school district must abide by Federal rules in order to get any money. This means that you can not change your core method of education without the Federal Government changing theirs. Even if you went to a classical system, you would still be required to spend the money and time for the federally mandated testing. Most schools today are spending at least 2 months a year just on this testing, so losing 2 months of educating.
As to saving money.. How much money is being spent on school board members? If they cost money why not make them voluntary positions? How much money on duplicate or unnecessary bureaucracy and redundant positions? Those are usually the big things to target, in addition to checking for fraud and waste which is pretty common in any bureaucracy.
The problem with most school budgets is not a local problem, but the federal mandates. Petition the Feds to move the requirement to 1 test per year, or 1 test every other year. Have your school start tracking the material required for this testing separately so that you can make your point very clearly. Spread that information to other schools and have them do the same.
Critical thinking is not simply skepticism, or self skepticism. Critical thinking is the ability to look at an issue, minimize the issue to it's basic level(s), remove all of the biases and bad logic, and finally determine whether the issue is valid. (Issue in this case may be someone's proposed solution, which first requires determining the validity of the "problem"). Validity can be a probability as well as a real number, since Logic deals with abstract information as often as the measurable.
I would agree that part of that process is skepticism, because you have to have motivation to question someone's statements and/or allegations. I'd further agree that it's partially self skepticism, because a good portion of learning how to critically think is to be able to question your own beliefs and biases so that you can remove them from the issue you are attempting to resolve. The latter is also the most difficult and rare.
The core of critical thinking is Logic. Logic can be learned since it has rules just like complex math or physics, and symbolic Logic is math like in construction and you solve the problems for validity. Understanding logic (good and bad) is the core of what critical thinking is. If you don't understand why circular logic is faulty you may decide to use it, or be duped by someone using it because it can sound plausible in some scenarios. I'm sure that most people on Slashdot are familiar with a base rate fallacy as well. As to rhetoric, this is all language tactics. Rhetoric has been taught since the times of Ancient Greeks. Knowing how to stand up a straw man can be used to divert your main topic, or I can poison the well if I know your material. The use of rhetoric is far more visible in politics, but does show itself in science often enough.
Sagan's BS detector was simply an understanding of rhetoric and logic, with a single name that the middle class would find appealing.
You are claiming things exist, which simply do not. This again is your own personal theophobia. The word "God" in the Pledge of allegiance is exactly the same word as used in the Declaration of Independence. The construction is exactly the same as well. There is no inflection that in 1954 you had to be a protestant, or Lutheran, or Jewish. There is further no inflection that you can't believe in what ever God, god, or idols you want. The statement added was "under God", which simply means below a higher authority than man. Which to an atheist that could exactly mean "subject to the laws of evolution and extinction".
If you want to talk about the Jim Crow laws, we surely could talk about bias and bigotry in the US Government. In a country that has never killed someone for just being an atheist, that gave birth to Mormons, and both COS (church of satan and scientology) religions your argument is just plain wrong.
Rather foolish, because morals and critical thinking do not need to coexist. Morality has long been taught to the very young, who lack the development to think critically through various methods. Santa Claus, Religion, Fairy Tales, Fables, and even a parent spying on their kids and claiming supernatural knowledge are all ways of molding morality without a child being able to think critically. Children can't really begin to learn critical thinking until around 7-8 years old (average), mainly due to requirements in language and math to begin understanding concepts. Morality on the other hand can be learned very young, 3-4 years old or about the same time they begin to notice other people's emotions. Not necessarily why something is right or wrong, but _that_ something is right or wrong.
Classical Education (pre 1940s in the US) taught Reading, Writing, and basic math in the first grade. Critical thinking is very much like math, but requires language instead of numbers. Once the basics of math were solid and enough language was learned, a child would begin to learn the basics of rhetoric and debate. You can read up on the Classical Education system, Trivium, and Quadrivium on numerous sites.
What do you know about this "investigation"? If you know something, I would like to know what you know because I have been wondering for years if this is part of some conspiracy.
First, any plan to achieve an uncouth, illegal, or immoral goal could be called a conspiracy. I prefer not to label things as such since society has been brainwashed to equate "conspiracy" with "crazy" and "impossible". Note that "conspiracy theorist" is usually a slanderous term, often associated with a separation from reality. This I can tell you has been an overt brainwashing attempt which has been very successful, and it started in the late 1960s as TV gained popularity.
Off the top of my head I can't remember which books I read on the subject, however there is a book by a member of an early department of education which covers the topic rather nicely. It should not be that difficult to track down a name, acquisition of books like this can be at times problematic. I can tell you it was written by a female, who I believe was the secretary to the Director during the 1940s. Another source that is coming to mine is Carroll Quigley, and the book is Tragedy and Hope which covers a huge swath of terrain. Professor Quigley was allowed into an elite power broker club as a historian mostly, but would not join the group disagreeing mostly with their secrecy (which implies subversive tactics).
Personally, I think it's inhumane that children have been deprived of their parents.
As someone points out above, there has never been an ideal situation for children and parents especially among the poor and middle class. I believe things are worse today than ever, and surely some of that is cynicism which comes with age and wisdom. At the same time, seeing Black families go from 10% single parent rates in the 60s and 70s to well over 80% today indicates that at least some of my belief is valid and not simply cynicism.
The idea should not be just to require CAPTCHA as an additional password, the idea is to slow down an attacker and break scripts.
Maybe it's just me, but TFA and most comments so far are way off base. A guy suggesting to store passwords plain text in a DB? TFA claiming System administrators "should stop worrying about getting users to create strong passwords and should focus instead on properly securing password databases and detecting leaks when they happen."?
Is this an early April fools gag, did the NSA start posting and responding to threads?
Most security experts admit that Passwords are a problem, but "Strong" passwords are not overly complex for a user to remember if they receive the right training and reinforcement. P@ssw0rd is a bad idea, it's in every crack dictionary on the Internet (as well as p@55w0rd, p@ssword!, and a few thousand others. 1b=aTan[1998] is another story, and extremely difficult to crack. For a user, they can use variations of the same password for all of their services with minimal changes, and still have an extremely low chance of losing everything. 1998 may be your bank, denoted by the "b", where "e" and a different four digits is your email. Assuming the user changes the full structure about every year, you don't have to worry much about hackers.
Yes, if a shadow file gets stolen you have a different problem. That problem exists no matter what your password is. If a company notifies you that the shadow file was stolen you go change all your passwords. You have a couple days of time, unless of course a Government agency with massive power gets the shadow file, because you can't statistically crack a 12+ character "strong" password in 2 days even with the shadow file. Cracking a 12 character dictionary based password would still be hard to crack in 2 days time.
Your projection of me having a political reason for the comment is absolutely false. Try reading my post history and you will see I'm not a D or R. In fact I frequently speak against both.
Your defense of a person based on a false claim is way more telling than a bit of humor a large percentage of the populace had for a while. Numerous comedians made fun of Al Gore for silly statements (misinterpreted or otherwise) from the conservatives to the liberals. The people I remember jumping on the defense train were mostly the liberals. So now that we know a bit about you..
"School" being responsible education is not new, hell the Ancient Greek's had schools for the public (though they cost $$ to attend). Parents can surely teach a kid many things, but only what they know well enough to teach. Morality for example is high on the list of what a parent should teach their kids, Calculus.. not so much.
As we travel up to modern times, we have gone from a society that has 1 working parent and 1 at home taking care of kids to both parents normally having to work just to make ends meet. This means that the majority of parents can't teach a whole lot to their kids and public schools can (there is some interesting investigation to be done on whether or not this was planned, I recommend doing some reading).
Since the 1940s our public schools have not taught Critical thinking, Rhetoric, Logic, or Ethics. The way most kids get exposed to these subjects is at College level, and usually on accident (I know many people that have been pressured to take different classes in College). So if a parent did not learn how to critically think how do you propose they teach it exactly? Do you similarly expect a parent who lacks Calculus training to teach their kids Calculus? Or is that an okay subject for a school to teach? Please explain why they are any different as well.
As a point of clarity on the last paragraph, there are surely some teachers and professors who try and teach these skills. In no way did I intent to imply that "good" teachers don't exist or don't try and teach. More correctly, the "good" teachers get shackled by regulations and busy work which makes things even more difficult on them.
Exactly this! People forget that in the 1930s the US adopted the Prussian education system and dumped the classical education system for exactly this reason. What I find at least as interesting is that Germany followed suit much much later. Germany has gone from one of the best educated societies to as bad as the US in about 1/2 the time. Perhaps due to smaller scale, or perhaps because the implementation in the US was progressively implemented and the result exported to Germany.
Thats the scary bit, which sounds a lot like China. A legacy of the civil war. US is the Hotel California - you can never leave. Last time some states disagreed and tried to leave, millions died.
Fortunately the Russians did not treat their former republics that way!
So long as the Americans treat Lincoln as a hero, instead of a mass killer in the company of Stalin and Mao, we know the indoctrination is strong.
Your Theophobia is showing. The word "God" would not have bothered the founding fathers, it's a generic term that in no way claims any particular Religion is right or wrong. If you have doubts read "The Declaration of Independence" which was signed by all of them and includes the word "God" and the word "Creator". The US was not founded as an atheist Government, it was founded as a Government where is should be free to practice what ever faith you happen to believe in.
In other words, if you wish to worship a turtle there is no issue with you doing so. You probably won't have many people believing what you do, but nobody should be able to stop you. This not to be confused with you forcing your beliefs on others, or people having to make special exceptions for your beliefs. I.E. If worshiping the turtle is a 7 day a week duty because they also listen slow, society does not have to provide you welfare to support your belief. We respect Hindu Religion and beliefs, but non Hindu people can still eat cows, etc..
Australia in my opinion is an easy target and it only takes one. Just look at how people defend the British Monarchy and believe that because of the family tree, the Monarchs somehow deserve your money. Even though your Government does not include the monarchy in the power structure.
In fairness many other former British colonies do the same exact thing, pay the monarchy lots of money that is. I could write quite a bit on that subject, but would rather not divert the topic too much.
I'm not too sure about New Zealand, I'll save that one for someone else.
You are still only discussing the commercial (private) aspects of a dump. The Government does not have to worry about any of their own regulations, because they are the enforcers of the regulations. The only concern for Google in dumping data to any Government is that people may find out and stop using the service. As discussed in TFA, this can be offset quite a bit by providing "free" services and claiming "do no evil" as the company motto. Obviously there would be a point at which their credibility absolutely fails, but that seems to be a long way off. Today, could Google give enough information to the US Government such that the Government could imprison all people with a belief system that challenges the establishment? It's probably close to that point, if not there already.
When dealing with these thoughts, you should never isolate your opinion on the danger to yesterday or today. A well intentioned person in office today is always replaced in a future election, and those new people may not have the same intentions.
If you really believe that, then you are completely ignorant to both Gary Allen and his work. Seriously, the book is a few hundred pages in large print and should take an adult a week of spare time to read. You either have not read it, or are a sock puppet attempting to discourage people from reading (not surprising if the latter, see the my 3rd to last paragraph).
While I'd agree that a few of Gary Allen's points seem to be far fetched, this is Journalism. It's a source and fact based book with plenty of evidence. I have heard many people claim "conspiracy" to dismiss the work, but have yet to see anyone dispute the evidence he used to arrive at his conclusions.
Impressive! You moved from a personal attack based on fabrication, to a defense using another personal attack based on the same fabrication. I'm amazed at your rhetorical dexterity and incredible ability to change your argument to reflect your opponents knowledge and rhetorical skill. I'll bet that the Government trolls are all in awe of your incredible talent to troll, you are truly their master. (That is called sarcasm just in case you missed it.)
I'd suggest you apologize for the first attack and a claim that you will try and improve your ability to hold dialogue. A more likely scenario however, is that you will form yet another personal attack and repeat your bad logic hoping it will somehow come true.
wtf. I wrote a _short_ paragraph and you really had trouble reading the first sentence? I'll quote the sentence in bold so that you can't miss it. Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all?
Need me to be more clear than that even? He does not do much to "run" that company because he has experts on the payroll to do that for him! This is why he could take a very long honeymoon, can hang out in DC with politicians, and can do all sorts of other things other than "run a company".
You are trying to make it sound like the guy works his dick off, and that is the complete opposite of reality. His main job is to A) Have money. and B) Hire people to make him more money. and finally C) Fire anyone that fails at B..
That is not to say that he didn't put in hours before facebook went public, but working hard is something that the majority of people do every day and they are not treated as special celebrities for doing so. This particular person happened to be on the better end of an IPO deal that most people don't get, and that's not talent or smarts.. it's luck and connections.
Back to my original point, when you don't have to work 40-60 hours a week and you can hire tutors, it is not surprising that this person can learn a 2nd language. It does not indicate in any way that a person is special or smart. I work with people that are fluent in 4-5 languages while working 40-60 hour weeks, and those people are special in my opinion (which is why I started learning Russian, I'm jealous of their linguistic abilities!).
Since you lack the knowledge you are obviously in no position to ask those questions or make those insinuations. If you would have taken an alternative approach and asked for sources of the knowledge, I would have provided the same information. I still don't get the feeling that you want the knowledge, but rather you wish to make believe that you have it.
Living in make believe is not necessarily a bad thing, assuming you maintained your fantasy in private. In public where it can dupe others into a false reality is quite different, and I openly and actively discourage that action.
Before posting next time, at least glimpse at an article to know who Mitnick was. Then try not to confuse him with Aaron Schwartz, who is a totally separate person and circumstance.
Your opinion of all 3 of those people is exclusively based on a non-existent fantasy land.
So the Journalists Jim Tucker, Jon Ronson, and Daniel Estulin all worked for naturenews? No, you are posting as ignorantly as the person I responded to. I really don't care what you don't want to know, but don't attempt to discourage others from knowledge.
By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question.
Well, I don't believe this is a question at all. This demonstrates very well what people have been saying for years. The R and D candidates are merely props put up by the same "elites" so that people get the illusion that they are really voting for something. I'm guessing that Schmidt was more sloppy than the better players making it this easy to see, and that is usually related to ego.
Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury.
In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983.
Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch.
By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000.
This shows a bit more than "getting involved in politics".
As for item 2 and 3, a large portion of the article is describing Google's "Think/Do Tank" which operates way beyond "do no evil". The groups has potential involvement in numerous nefarious activities, and numerous connections to the US State Department and other US Officials.
Your last statement is a complete farce, and I'd suggest reading the article and actually studying what the Bilderberg conference is about, as opposed to the blanket dismissal without evidence. There has been plenty of great journalism done on this conference, and no it's not just some cool hotel hangout.
Your statement would be true if the information was dumped to the public, but completely false if the information was provided to a Government for the purposes of squashing dissent. The latter is the concern, not the former.
Surely you could recover if someone leaked an unfortunate browsing habit of yours. It would take some time to blow over, and of course you would be embarrassed.
On the other hand, if you had knowledge or beliefs that run counter to an administration and could be targeted with say.. planting pornographic images of children on your computer.. you are now silenced and behind bars.
The "elites" have the best education money can buy, they have the best advisers money can buy, and the free time to research what ever they need because they don't have to work 40-60 hours a week to make ends meet.
Given that little bit of information let me ask who exactly is not that smart. You or them? Just to drive the point home, lets play along with a few more questions.
How many people would an elite group have to control in order to really run the country? They don't need to control each person individually, they just need to control enough to maintain media so that they could build up or destroy a person. Nearly all media is already controlled by 3 people in the USA. It does not take manually handling politicians to control them, it takes money and errand runners. Given that the President, Congress, and Senate is less than a thousand people, you only need a few runners for each of the people in the conspiracy. They don't need to control State politics, just few Governors is all. California and New York have a big enough population to concern people, Wyoming on the other hand does not have enough population to be a concern.
Further, you don't need to direct every detail to get the result you want. Bits and pieces here and there is called compartmentalization, and we have known about this for a very long time. Agencies within the Government practice this with a high degree of precision, such as the projects that built the SR71, F117, etc... You can see it in action after the fact so you know it exists, yet you somehow want to claim that it could only work with building some of the most complex machines the world has ever seen and could not happen in politics. Come now, that's just idiocy.
As to Conspiracy in general, take the TV show Survivor. In the first series people almost immediately started conspiring with others to win. After the first series, the conspiracies became the focal point of the show. If people would conspire within a few days to win a million dollars, you don't believe it's possible that they would conspire when the stakes are much higher? This is also idiocy.
One of the most important things I ever read regarding politics was this.
FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We
believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of avenges, half of the events affecting our nation's well being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove 'bat we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.
In the past people have commented simply to discourage people from reading the book, so I won't be surprised to see that again. The book is from 1971 and titled "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen.
Labeling people "Conspiracy Theorist" has happened since the same years. Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable question, label and belittle. If that does not work simply censor and ignore. (Also covered in the same book).
I believe you need to try harder to discourage people from making connections which are easy to see. Dump the Trollhandbook and actually attempt to hold rational discourse and dialogue with people.
An anonymous tip prompted the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate the case, which resulted in more than $40,000 in back wages paid to the eight employees and a fine of $3,500 for Electronics for Imaging.
In this case, should not the HR people and management be facing criminal charges for slavery? Forcing people to work 120hr work weeks and paying them an illegally low wage strikes me as something that should be sitting on a prosecutors desk. IANAL, but I'd be interested in hearing from one. A 120hr work week is an 18 hour day 7 days a week.
Slashdot Mirror
The Classical education system is not going to save money on it's own, it's simply a different method of introducing subjects and teaching. Overlapping subjects, such as Trigonometry and Music theory are taught simultaneously, so that people can see and hear what the Trig shows on paper. Algebra is taught with Algebra based Physics, English is taught with Rhetoric and Debate, Logic is taught with History, Sociology, Current/World Events, and classical Philosophy.
Your current budget woes may be a symptom of the current federally mandated education system. How many people are required to handle all of the federally mandated testing at all of the federally mandated times? (most schools are testing 4 times a year, and preparations are a large portion of the in-between time).
Your school district must abide by Federal rules in order to get any money. This means that you can not change your core method of education without the Federal Government changing theirs. Even if you went to a classical system, you would still be required to spend the money and time for the federally mandated testing. Most schools today are spending at least 2 months a year just on this testing, so losing 2 months of educating.
As to saving money.. How much money is being spent on school board members? If they cost money why not make them voluntary positions? How much money on duplicate or unnecessary bureaucracy and redundant positions? Those are usually the big things to target, in addition to checking for fraud and waste which is pretty common in any bureaucracy.
The problem with most school budgets is not a local problem, but the federal mandates. Petition the Feds to move the requirement to 1 test per year, or 1 test every other year. Have your school start tracking the material required for this testing separately so that you can make your point very clearly. Spread that information to other schools and have them do the same.
Critical thinking is not simply skepticism, or self skepticism. Critical thinking is the ability to look at an issue, minimize the issue to it's basic level(s), remove all of the biases and bad logic, and finally determine whether the issue is valid. (Issue in this case may be someone's proposed solution, which first requires determining the validity of the "problem"). Validity can be a probability as well as a real number, since Logic deals with abstract information as often as the measurable.
I would agree that part of that process is skepticism, because you have to have motivation to question someone's statements and/or allegations. I'd further agree that it's partially self skepticism, because a good portion of learning how to critically think is to be able to question your own beliefs and biases so that you can remove them from the issue you are attempting to resolve. The latter is also the most difficult and rare.
The core of critical thinking is Logic. Logic can be learned since it has rules just like complex math or physics, and symbolic Logic is math like in construction and you solve the problems for validity. Understanding logic (good and bad) is the core of what critical thinking is. If you don't understand why circular logic is faulty you may decide to use it, or be duped by someone using it because it can sound plausible in some scenarios. I'm sure that most people on Slashdot are familiar with a base rate fallacy as well. As to rhetoric, this is all language tactics. Rhetoric has been taught since the times of Ancient Greeks. Knowing how to stand up a straw man can be used to divert your main topic, or I can poison the well if I know your material. The use of rhetoric is far more visible in politics, but does show itself in science often enough.
Sagan's BS detector was simply an understanding of rhetoric and logic, with a single name that the middle class would find appealing.
You are claiming things exist, which simply do not. This again is your own personal theophobia. The word "God" in the Pledge of allegiance is exactly the same word as used in the Declaration of Independence. The construction is exactly the same as well. There is no inflection that in 1954 you had to be a protestant, or Lutheran, or Jewish. There is further no inflection that you can't believe in what ever God, god, or idols you want. The statement added was "under God", which simply means below a higher authority than man. Which to an atheist that could exactly mean "subject to the laws of evolution and extinction".
If you want to talk about the Jim Crow laws, we surely could talk about bias and bigotry in the US Government. In a country that has never killed someone for just being an atheist, that gave birth to Mormons, and both COS (church of satan and scientology) religions your argument is just plain wrong.
Rather foolish, because morals and critical thinking do not need to coexist. Morality has long been taught to the very young, who lack the development to think critically through various methods. Santa Claus, Religion, Fairy Tales, Fables, and even a parent spying on their kids and claiming supernatural knowledge are all ways of molding morality without a child being able to think critically. Children can't really begin to learn critical thinking until around 7-8 years old (average), mainly due to requirements in language and math to begin understanding concepts. Morality on the other hand can be learned very young, 3-4 years old or about the same time they begin to notice other people's emotions. Not necessarily why something is right or wrong, but _that_ something is right or wrong.
Classical Education (pre 1940s in the US) taught Reading, Writing, and basic math in the first grade. Critical thinking is very much like math, but requires language instead of numbers. Once the basics of math were solid and enough language was learned, a child would begin to learn the basics of rhetoric and debate. You can read up on the Classical Education system, Trivium, and Quadrivium on numerous sites.
What do you know about this "investigation"? If you know something, I would like to know what you know because I have been wondering for years if this is part of some conspiracy.
First, any plan to achieve an uncouth, illegal, or immoral goal could be called a conspiracy. I prefer not to label things as such since society has been brainwashed to equate "conspiracy" with "crazy" and "impossible". Note that "conspiracy theorist" is usually a slanderous term, often associated with a separation from reality. This I can tell you has been an overt brainwashing attempt which has been very successful, and it started in the late 1960s as TV gained popularity.
Off the top of my head I can't remember which books I read on the subject, however there is a book by a member of an early department of education which covers the topic rather nicely. It should not be that difficult to track down a name, acquisition of books like this can be at times problematic. I can tell you it was written by a female, who I believe was the secretary to the Director during the 1940s. Another source that is coming to mine is Carroll Quigley, and the book is Tragedy and Hope which covers a huge swath of terrain. Professor Quigley was allowed into an elite power broker club as a historian mostly, but would not join the group disagreeing mostly with their secrecy (which implies subversive tactics).
Personally, I think it's inhumane that children have been deprived of their parents.
As someone points out above, there has never been an ideal situation for children and parents especially among the poor and middle class. I believe things are worse today than ever, and surely some of that is cynicism which comes with age and wisdom. At the same time, seeing Black families go from 10% single parent rates in the 60s and 70s to well over 80% today indicates that at least some of my belief is valid and not simply cynicism.
The idea should not be just to require CAPTCHA as an additional password, the idea is to slow down an attacker and break scripts.
Maybe it's just me, but TFA and most comments so far are way off base. A guy suggesting to store passwords plain text in a DB? TFA claiming System administrators "should stop worrying about getting users to create strong passwords and should focus instead on properly securing password databases and detecting leaks when they happen."?
Is this an early April fools gag, did the NSA start posting and responding to threads?
Most security experts admit that Passwords are a problem, but "Strong" passwords are not overly complex for a user to remember if they receive the right training and reinforcement. P@ssw0rd is a bad idea, it's in every crack dictionary on the Internet (as well as p@55w0rd, p@ssword!, and a few thousand others. 1b=aTan[1998] is another story, and extremely difficult to crack. For a user, they can use variations of the same password for all of their services with minimal changes, and still have an extremely low chance of losing everything. 1998 may be your bank, denoted by the "b", where "e" and a different four digits is your email. Assuming the user changes the full structure about every year, you don't have to worry much about hackers.
Yes, if a shadow file gets stolen you have a different problem. That problem exists no matter what your password is. If a company notifies you that the shadow file was stolen you go change all your passwords. You have a couple days of time, unless of course a Government agency with massive power gets the shadow file, because you can't statistically crack a 12+ character "strong" password in 2 days even with the shadow file. Cracking a 12 character dictionary based password would still be hard to crack in 2 days time.
Your projection of me having a political reason for the comment is absolutely false. Try reading my post history and you will see I'm not a D or R. In fact I frequently speak against both.
Your defense of a person based on a false claim is way more telling than a bit of humor a large percentage of the populace had for a while. Numerous comedians made fun of Al Gore for silly statements (misinterpreted or otherwise) from the conservatives to the liberals. The people I remember jumping on the defense train were mostly the liberals. So now that we know a bit about you..
"School" being responsible education is not new, hell the Ancient Greek's had schools for the public (though they cost $$ to attend). Parents can surely teach a kid many things, but only what they know well enough to teach. Morality for example is high on the list of what a parent should teach their kids, Calculus.. not so much.
As we travel up to modern times, we have gone from a society that has 1 working parent and 1 at home taking care of kids to both parents normally having to work just to make ends meet. This means that the majority of parents can't teach a whole lot to their kids and public schools can (there is some interesting investigation to be done on whether or not this was planned, I recommend doing some reading).
Since the 1940s our public schools have not taught Critical thinking, Rhetoric, Logic, or Ethics. The way most kids get exposed to these subjects is at College level, and usually on accident (I know many people that have been pressured to take different classes in College). So if a parent did not learn how to critically think how do you propose they teach it exactly? Do you similarly expect a parent who lacks Calculus training to teach their kids Calculus? Or is that an okay subject for a school to teach? Please explain why they are any different as well.
As a point of clarity on the last paragraph, there are surely some teachers and professors who try and teach these skills. In no way did I intent to imply that "good" teachers don't exist or don't try and teach. More correctly, the "good" teachers get shackled by regulations and busy work which makes things even more difficult on them.
Bennett would not have been able to make a social network if Al Gore didn't invent the Internet for him!
Sorry, in my view it was a trip down memory lane worth taking..
Exactly this! People forget that in the 1930s the US adopted the Prussian education system and dumped the classical education system for exactly this reason. What I find at least as interesting is that Germany followed suit much much later. Germany has gone from one of the best educated societies to as bad as the US in about 1/2 the time. Perhaps due to smaller scale, or perhaps because the implementation in the US was progressively implemented and the result exported to Germany.
Thats the scary bit, which sounds a lot like China. A legacy of the civil war. US is the Hotel California - you can never leave. Last time some states disagreed and tried to leave, millions died. Fortunately the Russians did not treat their former republics that way! So long as the Americans treat Lincoln as a hero, instead of a mass killer in the company of Stalin and Mao, we know the indoctrination is strong.
Your Theophobia is showing. The word "God" would not have bothered the founding fathers, it's a generic term that in no way claims any particular Religion is right or wrong. If you have doubts read "The Declaration of Independence" which was signed by all of them and includes the word "God" and the word "Creator". The US was not founded as an atheist Government, it was founded as a Government where is should be free to practice what ever faith you happen to believe in.
In other words, if you wish to worship a turtle there is no issue with you doing so. You probably won't have many people believing what you do, but nobody should be able to stop you. This not to be confused with you forcing your beliefs on others, or people having to make special exceptions for your beliefs. I.E. If worshiping the turtle is a 7 day a week duty because they also listen slow, society does not have to provide you welfare to support your belief. We respect Hindu Religion and beliefs, but non Hindu people can still eat cows, etc..
Australia in my opinion is an easy target and it only takes one. Just look at how people defend the British Monarchy and believe that because of the family tree, the Monarchs somehow deserve your money. Even though your Government does not include the monarchy in the power structure.
In fairness many other former British colonies do the same exact thing, pay the monarchy lots of money that is. I could write quite a bit on that subject, but would rather not divert the topic too much.
I'm not too sure about New Zealand, I'll save that one for someone else.
You are still only discussing the commercial (private) aspects of a dump. The Government does not have to worry about any of their own regulations, because they are the enforcers of the regulations. The only concern for Google in dumping data to any Government is that people may find out and stop using the service. As discussed in TFA, this can be offset quite a bit by providing "free" services and claiming "do no evil" as the company motto. Obviously there would be a point at which their credibility absolutely fails, but that seems to be a long way off. Today, could Google give enough information to the US Government such that the Government could imprison all people with a belief system that challenges the establishment? It's probably close to that point, if not there already.
When dealing with these thoughts, you should never isolate your opinion on the danger to yesterday or today. A well intentioned person in office today is always replaced in a future election, and those new people may not have the same intentions.
If you really believe that, then you are completely ignorant to both Gary Allen and his work. Seriously, the book is a few hundred pages in large print and should take an adult a week of spare time to read. You either have not read it, or are a sock puppet attempting to discourage people from reading (not surprising if the latter, see the my 3rd to last paragraph).
While I'd agree that a few of Gary Allen's points seem to be far fetched, this is Journalism. It's a source and fact based book with plenty of evidence. I have heard many people claim "conspiracy" to dismiss the work, but have yet to see anyone dispute the evidence he used to arrive at his conclusions.
Impressive! You moved from a personal attack based on fabrication, to a defense using another personal attack based on the same fabrication. I'm amazed at your rhetorical dexterity and incredible ability to change your argument to reflect your opponents knowledge and rhetorical skill. I'll bet that the Government trolls are all in awe of your incredible talent to troll, you are truly their master. (That is called sarcasm just in case you missed it.)
I'd suggest you apologize for the first attack and a claim that you will try and improve your ability to hold dialogue. A more likely scenario however, is that you will form yet another personal attack and repeat your bad logic hoping it will somehow come true.
wtf. I wrote a _short_ paragraph and you really had trouble reading the first sentence? I'll quote the sentence in bold so that you can't miss it. Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all?
Need me to be more clear than that even? He does not do much to "run" that company because he has experts on the payroll to do that for him! This is why he could take a very long honeymoon, can hang out in DC with politicians, and can do all sorts of other things other than "run a company".
You are trying to make it sound like the guy works his dick off, and that is the complete opposite of reality. His main job is to A) Have money. and B) Hire people to make him more money. and finally C) Fire anyone that fails at B..
That is not to say that he didn't put in hours before facebook went public, but working hard is something that the majority of people do every day and they are not treated as special celebrities for doing so. This particular person happened to be on the better end of an IPO deal that most people don't get, and that's not talent or smarts.. it's luck and connections.
Back to my original point, when you don't have to work 40-60 hours a week and you can hire tutors, it is not surprising that this person can learn a 2nd language. It does not indicate in any way that a person is special or smart. I work with people that are fluent in 4-5 languages while working 40-60 hour weeks, and those people are special in my opinion (which is why I started learning Russian, I'm jealous of their linguistic abilities!).
Since you lack the knowledge you are obviously in no position to ask those questions or make those insinuations. If you would have taken an alternative approach and asked for sources of the knowledge, I would have provided the same information. I still don't get the feeling that you want the knowledge, but rather you wish to make believe that you have it.
Living in make believe is not necessarily a bad thing, assuming you maintained your fantasy in private. In public where it can dupe others into a false reality is quite different, and I openly and actively discourage that action.
Before posting next time, at least glimpse at an article to know who Mitnick was. Then try not to confuse him with Aaron Schwartz, who is a totally separate person and circumstance.
Your opinion of all 3 of those people is exclusively based on a non-existent fantasy land.
So the Journalists Jim Tucker, Jon Ronson, and Daniel Estulin all worked for naturenews? No, you are posting as ignorantly as the person I responded to. I really don't care what you don't want to know, but don't attempt to discourage others from knowledge.
By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question.
Well, I don't believe this is a question at all. This demonstrates very well what people have been saying for years. The R and D candidates are merely props put up by the same "elites" so that people get the illusion that they are really voting for something. I'm guessing that Schmidt was more sloppy than the better players making it this easy to see, and that is usually related to ego.
Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury.
In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983.
Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch.
By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000.
This shows a bit more than "getting involved in politics".
As for item 2 and 3, a large portion of the article is describing Google's "Think/Do Tank" which operates way beyond "do no evil". The groups has potential involvement in numerous nefarious activities, and numerous connections to the US State Department and other US Officials.
Your last statement is a complete farce, and I'd suggest reading the article and actually studying what the Bilderberg conference is about, as opposed to the blanket dismissal without evidence. There has been plenty of great journalism done on this conference, and no it's not just some cool hotel hangout.
Your statement would be true if the information was dumped to the public, but completely false if the information was provided to a Government for the purposes of squashing dissent. The latter is the concern, not the former.
Surely you could recover if someone leaked an unfortunate browsing habit of yours. It would take some time to blow over, and of course you would be embarrassed.
On the other hand, if you had knowledge or beliefs that run counter to an administration and could be targeted with say.. planting pornographic images of children on your computer.. you are now silenced and behind bars.
The "elites" have the best education money can buy, they have the best advisers money can buy, and the free time to research what ever they need because they don't have to work 40-60 hours a week to make ends meet.
Given that little bit of information let me ask who exactly is not that smart. You or them? Just to drive the point home, lets play along with a few more questions.
How many people would an elite group have to control in order to really run the country? They don't need to control each person individually, they just need to control enough to maintain media so that they could build up or destroy a person. Nearly all media is already controlled by 3 people in the USA. It does not take manually handling politicians to control them, it takes money and errand runners. Given that the President, Congress, and Senate is less than a thousand people, you only need a few runners for each of the people in the conspiracy. They don't need to control State politics, just few Governors is all. California and New York have a big enough population to concern people, Wyoming on the other hand does not have enough population to be a concern.
Further, you don't need to direct every detail to get the result you want. Bits and pieces here and there is called compartmentalization, and we have known about this for a very long time. Agencies within the Government practice this with a high degree of precision, such as the projects that built the SR71, F117, etc... You can see it in action after the fact so you know it exists, yet you somehow want to claim that it could only work with building some of the most complex machines the world has ever seen and could not happen in politics. Come now, that's just idiocy.
As to Conspiracy in general, take the TV show Survivor. In the first series people almost immediately started conspiring with others to win. After the first series, the conspiracies became the focal point of the show. If people would conspire within a few days to win a million dollars, you don't believe it's possible that they would conspire when the stakes are much higher? This is also idiocy.
One of the most important things I ever read regarding politics was this.
FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of avenges, half of the events affecting our nation's well being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove 'bat we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.
In the past people have commented simply to discourage people from reading the book, so I won't be surprised to see that again. The book is from 1971 and titled "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen.
Labeling people "Conspiracy Theorist" has happened since the same years. Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable question, label and belittle. If that does not work simply censor and ignore. (Also covered in the same book).
I believe you need to try harder to discourage people from making connections which are easy to see. Dump the Troll handbook and actually attempt to hold rational discourse and dialogue with people.
Shelling != bombing, so your pedant-ism has be returned. Your play! :)
An anonymous tip prompted the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate the case, which resulted in more than $40,000 in back wages paid to the eight employees and a fine of $3,500 for Electronics for Imaging.
In this case, should not the HR people and management be facing criminal charges for slavery? Forcing people to work 120hr work weeks and paying them an illegally low wage strikes me as something that should be sitting on a prosecutors desk. IANAL, but I'd be interested in hearing from one. A 120hr work week is an 18 hour day 7 days a week.