And 3 million cubic tons of debris won't have impact? Seeing as how it's waste materials and full of toxins, and waters have currents and such, it could potentially do a lot of damage. Yeah yeah, it's dredge materials they are dumping. That means it's full of runoff and shit you surely would not want in your garden.
Would it not make more sense to truck this out to one of the massive deserts and bury it perhaps?
It boils down to money for the politicians and their buddies (common theme not limited to the US). Here is an idea. Why not move the dirt to their yards, and the people supporting this project. Let all of the people claiming 'so what' and 'no big deal' share in the spoils. I mean, you are making money from the deal so you should surely share in the spoils.
All right, but let's expand that a bit. Should every engineer know calculus?
Yes, every Engineer should know Calculus. This is different from what's in the subject "Re:Should Everybody Learn Calculus?".
Now what someone could ask without such an extreme bias is "Should every student in high school learn what calculus is and what you can use it for?" to which the answer would be "yes".
Learning "Calculus" requires a lot of precursory work which people in general don't in High School. A person could even ask "Should everyone learn the basics of Algebra, Geometry, and Trig to which that answer would also be "yes".
I'm not saying you introduced the bias, the AC did.
What? Please go back and read what you wrote? You seem to be changing your position, in addition to using the wrong words for the wrong things.
This doesn't require any more regulation.
It isn't "more regulation", it's "applying the regulations that already exist."
This is your first misuse of "regulation", because this is enforcement that you are looking for. I'm okay with this as a mistake in communication.
Deceptive advertising is fraud. Don't "regulate" --
Prosecuting for fraud IS regulation. And when statements like this appear:
This is your second mistaken use of "regulation", because this again is enforcement and not regulation. Worse, you are claiming that enforcement is regulation, and it is not.
At Hack Reactor, where tuition costs over $17,000, 99 percent of students are offered a job at companies like Adobe and Google. According to Phillips, the average salary for a computer scientist at these firms is over six figures.
it isn't fraud (assuming the 99 percent claim is true.) It's YOUR fault if you misread "a job" as meaning "a computer scientist" job. It certainly IS your fault if you think that you can teach someone to be a computer scientist worth a six figure salary in just ten weeks.
And I hate to say this (no I really don't) but any outfit that charges $17000 for a ten week course needs some kind of overview. Even if the first two or three companies doing this are legit, such ridiculous amounts of money are going to draw hucksters like iron filings to buckey cubes. Legit course providers should have no problem with the regulation because it will help keep the less legitimate players out.
The last sentence is arguing _for_ this additional regulation. I put it in bold just in case you can't see it. This may not be what you intended to mean, but it is surely what is meant when reading.
The person stated that there was no need for additional regulation, and you said what I quoted in response arguing for further regulation. I did not rework your wording, you can read your own words.
You did not leave out a link, you simply misused the word "regulation". You misused it twice in fact, but I only pointed out one misuse.
On the surface, this may seem pedantic. Looking at your other statements it is anything but. It's good you have an opinion, but that opinion should be rationally expressed.
Prosecuting for fraud IS regulation. And when statements like this appear:
You should research the word "enforcement", because it is not the same as "regulation". No, you can't use them interchangeably as you are trying to do.
That is a very steep slippery slope you are standing on. School != "performing surgery" and simply going to school has never given a license to a doctor to perform surgery.
If the Government does not charge for regulation, you may have a point. If they are doing so for the revenue, then it's not protecting the public that they are worried about. This is the problem with most of these types of regulations.
Lastly, if a student signs up to a college that guarantees a job at X company and does not get job at X company they can sue the school. If they promise to teach you C programming and teach you finger painting you can sue them as well. You seem to be concerned about the people wasting time as much as money, and dding overhead to schools won't change that in the slightest.
Consumers are always partially responsible for their decisions. The trickier the scam the less responsible the consumer would be. To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for people that sign up to these schools because they can always choose to do 5 minutes of research on the school before dumping 15,000.00 on them. Most of that is done in loans at insane interest rates, so the student does not lose money. They can recoup court costs in civil court so don't lose money there either. Further, what better way of educating people about the ole saying "if something looks too good to be true it probably is".
This is not the same as tricking some poor ole lady out of her life savings. These "students" are trying to take shortcuts and getting suckered because they want shortcuts. It should take a whole 60 seconds to validate a schools accreditation, and another 4 minutes looking in Google to find people complaining about the scam schools.
So a technical job can volunteer for combat duty? No they can't, and if you served you know that. Most military people are not in combat roles, they are in support roles. Unless you retrain and get assigned to a combat unit, you don't get choice. Retraining and reassignment can be blocked for any number of reasons. MOS shortages (real or contrived) being pretty common.
If you are in a support/command unit, you either get deployed or you don't.
I'm not saying I agree with them cheating, I'm pointing out why it happens. It's like all of the officers pushed through jump school even though they shouldn't get their wings. The system is designed so that these things happen, and you don't fix a design problem by punishing the people trying to survive in the system.
2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?
a - Russia
b - Luxembourg
c - New York
d - New Zealand
e - Florida
WTF? You need a "none of the above" and "all of the above" on this one, because everyone knows that New Zealand is the first target for all nuclear superpowers! Screw them and their beautiful islands!
A few companies prefer vets, mostly those that have vets managing and directing. A minority for sure, but they do exist. So it's not "Lots of people!", it's "I hope you can find one of those because they do exist but are very rare."
You are confusing two separate issues, perhaps intentionally.
First, the Military _may_ be overstaffed and maybe not. Sure, we could close some remote bases or seek funding from the countries we are there to supposedly protect instead of paying them to be there. But lets not forget that a whole lot of traditional military work has gone to "Contractors" who have almost zero accountability. I'd rather have soldiers sworn to protect the constitution doing that work. Sure, there are always problems and Abu Graib was horrible. That said, at least some people were punished for it. Unlike Blackwater that has done things at least this bad yet noone gets punished. So perhaps the Military is not so much over staffed as they are used improperly and mismanaged.
The second issue is how promotions work in the Military. If you spent ten years of your life serving and want to continue to retirement you have to make rank. In order to make rank, you have go get points. Those points are nothing simple, and nothing like it exists in the civilian sector that I know of. If your job is a 35R there may be 100 E4 rank jobs, but only 5 jobs at E5 rank, and 1 at E6. If you have spent 12 years serving and can't get E6 in that time you, can't reenlist. Your 12 year investment into a career is gone. And it's not like you get some great civilian job out of 12 years military service. A military mechanic, electrician, etc.. is not considered the same as a civilian and very few of the military certifications count as civilian certifications.
All 100 of the E4s know that they need points to get rank and if they plan to make the military a career they all do the same things. They all go to airborne school, air assault school, work to shoot well and do well on their PT tests. It's little things like these BS tests and ass kissing that get the next rank and let a person continue at their desired career.
Seems like you know jack about the Military on the surface, so I'll point out another huge difference between civilian jobs and military. In the civilian world you can change jobs when ever the hell you want. In the Military you can't do this, you have to serve out your term. This means reserve time after active duty whether you want it or not, in addition to your active time. People that volunteer for a second term have given up a hell of a lot to protect you and your way of life. An attitude like yours ensures that we get shit people in the military, not people who care to do a good job. Considering the true purpose of their job, you don't really don't want shitty people (there even though you may try and claim otherwise).
FYI I am a vet and lived the life. I worked in DOD for 10 years and another 20 in the civilian sector. I can speak to both sides from an educated perspective.
That's the old hiring practice. The new practice adds the additional question "Are you willing to spy a lot on the American people?"
Can you spy on the American People and play dumb, convincingly before Congress? (They authorized all this but now clamber over each other claiming shock and dismay while attempting to reach for the highest indignation.)
No they didn't. Americans never voted on this crap. Hell, Congress had no time to read the Patriot act until after the vote either. After the fact we all heard about how the terrorist would kill all of our children if we repealed this law instead of having any rational debate.
Now you could claim that American's have been complacent and let things happen, that much I would agree with. This would also explain some of their shock and dismay as they see what the complacency has turned into.
Even that is questionable. One of Obama's Hope and Change speeches claimed that the Patriot act had to go, and that Government needed to be more transparent.
My comment was obviously regarding It had nothing about the truth or trying to get there, and seemed to me at the time to be a grossly unethical activity.. It is a historical fact that the Sophists practiced this and made money teaching others to win without concern for truth. It is a historical fact that Socrates despised the Sophists because of those two things, being well documented in both Plato's Dialogues and "The Republic".
You are trying to invent reasons to use the dialectic method as the point. It was not the point, the point was regarding truth. This is obvious to anyone with a third grade reading level based on my second sentence in the two I originally gave.
The "this" was a response to another distinctive statement. The person I responded to did not mention the dialectic either. I did not disagree with that post, I added emphasis to that post. Stop inventing things as an attempt to look intelligent, and simply be intelligent.
There is nothing to be gained from this dialogue, have a nice day.
What I said was very simple, there is no reason to attempt to change their contents. It was two sentences and neither were complex sentences that leave anything to the imagination.
You've got this precisely backwards: Dialectic was Socrates' preferred method, focusing on using rational dialog for the purpose of finding truth, rather than oratorical prowess for the purpose of showing who was the best at rhetoric.
No I don't have it backward. In fact you second my statement, albeit unintentionally, by citing something you don't fully comprehend. Read the first few books of Plato's Dialogue and The Republic and you will see I am correct and you are wrong.
Where this becomes very unstable is when you consider what happens to Military and Police when nukes get used against the populace. If in fact they could somehow feasibly blame it on a terrorist group, that would defeat the purpose of imposing martial law on the citizens. If they took blame and tried to impose martial law, the majority of the military and police would turn against them.
I agree that the bubble has to burst, anyone that evaluates our current debt and fiat situation could understand within minutes. But if the bubble bursts police and military would be lacking paychecks just like the rest of the populace, so again it does not benefit the controllers to have this happen.
It's easy to misdiagnose the problems and ramifications. People tend to use Hitler and Stalin as the template, but there is no correlation. The German economy was in the tank for decades before Hitler rose to power and started generating an economy. We could say similar about Lenin and Stalin, who had a populace that had nothing for a very long time.
I'm not claiming it's impossible mind you, but rather improbable when considering all of the impact to doing something this extreme.
There are other conspiracy theories that tell a similar story to the nukes and using bluebeam/haarp to make it look like aliens were attacking and nuking. Again, possible but not probable because this would have to be done world wide by every major government in order to work.
Sorry, but you are just as wrong as the person I responded to. When Socrates lays out "The Republic" it is very clear that all members of society would be trained in Philosophy. He points out that certain people will be better at Philosophy, just like certain people would be better at being Bakers or Farmers. The best Philosophers would be representatives in the Republic (Socrates's definition including truthful), but this had nothing to do with "class", lineage, gender, or race.
Socrates had no restrictions placed on a person for their jobs and duties, except that the Republic should ensure that society can survive. I.E. If everyone in society chose to be a Farmer, their society will perish.
Read the "whole" and don't pull out fragments that suit what you want to hear and portray.
Remember, the central meaning of life is to gain power, of which everyone does in ever little thing they do.
Obviously you are a very shallow and mentally disturbed person. No need to read the rest of your post. If this was meant as a joke you should have indicated such. As it is, you appear to be a very deranged person writing some sort of deranged manifesto.
Going out pretty far into unrealistic/questionable conspiracy theory here, but the method discussed amongst that crowd is not to wait until a revolt is in progress. Use the nuke as a false flag operation, blame them nasty other guys, then implement a police state since the populace would already be decimated. That crowd will also claim it's part of a depopulation plan for the world.
This of course is also not very sensible, because if "them bad guys" set off nukes in US cities it would leave the US weak and depopulate a country already in decline.
I don't agree with those theories mind you, just read enough about them to have some knowledge.
In defense of the "Majority" what has been happening in media should be expected. As you point out, "News" used to keep things in check (at least to some extent). People are searching now for alternative media because the media is all on the same team and covering and distracting, not keeping the corruption in check. The "established media" gives big business the same benefits they give the Government.
The majority has figured this out. Not only is Congress and the Presidents trust at an all time low, but established media is just as low. If the media was not monopolized any "News" station would make a mint by behaving like the NBC and ABC of the 1970s. They are monopolized so they all behave the same way, most news comes from the AP, and people are frustrated. Not only with things like interrupting a member of Congress with "breaking news about a celebrity", but how that example becomes it's own story "Breaking news! CNN interrupts member of congress with breaking news about a celebrity" so we end up with nothing of value.
The complete end of media happened not very long ago. If you search for Detroit and Steve Smith you will find the end. He was an investigative reporter which had massive ratings in Detroit and he broke lots of Kwami Kilpatrick corruption stories. Other "News" stations had their own investigative journalists trying to compete. Kwami had to flee office if you remember and is now serving jail time (not after completely destroying Detroit, but that's not the point). During the peak of the investigations, all of Detroit's investigative journalists were canned. The "for the money" excuse people had in other areas simply didn't work with these reporters because they were what was selling the "News". What is interesting is that near the same time every other major "News" outlet lost their investigative journalists as well. A few local Radio stations spent some time trying to figure out why this happened, but I think this is self evident today.
Long story short, people are searching for the truth and simply don't know where to find it. What's on TV has become only propaganda and people have caught on. LeftyJournal can take advantage of the same things TV News has become, as can RightyJournal. They may cover just enough to be a distraction for a while, but people will catch on there too. The sites that seem to do the best offer dialogue from both sides, but those are very rare.
I think you should go back and read what they wrote again, because you missed about 90% of what they said. They said for advance features MS may be better but 90% of the users don't need those features.
Another point is that you imply that they can't compare OO to MS because they switched to OO, but somehow you can because you switched to MS. Boggle.
Slashdot Mirror
And 3 million cubic tons of debris won't have impact? Seeing as how it's waste materials and full of toxins, and waters have currents and such, it could potentially do a lot of damage. Yeah yeah, it's dredge materials they are dumping. That means it's full of runoff and shit you surely would not want in your garden.
Would it not make more sense to truck this out to one of the massive deserts and bury it perhaps?
It boils down to money for the politicians and their buddies (common theme not limited to the US). Here is an idea. Why not move the dirt to their yards, and the people supporting this project. Let all of the people claiming 'so what' and 'no big deal' share in the spoils. I mean, you are making money from the deal so you should surely share in the spoils.
All right, but let's expand that a bit. Should every engineer know calculus?
Yes, every Engineer should know Calculus. This is different from what's in the subject "Re:Should Everybody Learn Calculus?".
Now what someone could ask without such an extreme bias is "Should every student in high school learn what calculus is and what you can use it for?" to which the answer would be "yes".
Learning "Calculus" requires a lot of precursory work which people in general don't in High School. A person could even ask "Should everyone learn the basics of Algebra, Geometry, and Trig to which that answer would also be "yes".
I'm not saying you introduced the bias, the AC did.
What? Please go back and read what you wrote? You seem to be changing your position, in addition to using the wrong words for the wrong things.
This doesn't require any more regulation.
It isn't "more regulation", it's "applying the regulations that already exist."
This is your first misuse of "regulation", because this is enforcement that you are looking for. I'm okay with this as a mistake in communication.
Deceptive advertising is fraud. Don't "regulate" --
Prosecuting for fraud IS regulation. And when statements like this appear:
This is your second mistaken use of "regulation", because this again is enforcement and not regulation. Worse, you are claiming that enforcement is regulation, and it is not.
At Hack Reactor, where tuition costs over $17,000, 99 percent of students are offered a job at companies like Adobe and Google. According to Phillips, the average salary for a computer scientist at these firms is over six figures.
it isn't fraud (assuming the 99 percent claim is true.) It's YOUR fault if you misread "a job" as meaning "a computer scientist" job. It certainly IS your fault if you think that you can teach someone to be a computer scientist worth a six figure salary in just ten weeks.
And I hate to say this (no I really don't) but any outfit that charges $17000 for a ten week course needs some kind of overview. Even if the first two or three companies doing this are legit, such ridiculous amounts of money are going to draw hucksters like iron filings to buckey cubes. Legit course providers should have no problem with the regulation because it will help keep the less legitimate players out.
The last sentence is arguing _for_ this additional regulation. I put it in bold just in case you can't see it. This may not be what you intended to mean, but it is surely what is meant when reading.
The person stated that there was no need for additional regulation, and you said what I quoted in response arguing for further regulation. I did not rework your wording, you can read your own words.
You did not leave out a link, you simply misused the word "regulation". You misused it twice in fact, but I only pointed out one misuse.
On the surface, this may seem pedantic. Looking at your other statements it is anything but. It's good you have an opinion, but that opinion should be rationally expressed.
Prosecuting for fraud IS regulation. And when statements like this appear:
You should research the word "enforcement", because it is not the same as "regulation". No, you can't use them interchangeably as you are trying to do.
That is a very steep slippery slope you are standing on. School != "performing surgery" and simply going to school has never given a license to a doctor to perform surgery.
If the Government does not charge for regulation, you may have a point. If they are doing so for the revenue, then it's not protecting the public that they are worried about. This is the problem with most of these types of regulations.
Lastly, if a student signs up to a college that guarantees a job at X company and does not get job at X company they can sue the school. If they promise to teach you C programming and teach you finger painting you can sue them as well. You seem to be concerned about the people wasting time as much as money, and dding overhead to schools won't change that in the slightest.
Consumers are always partially responsible for their decisions. The trickier the scam the less responsible the consumer would be. To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for people that sign up to these schools because they can always choose to do 5 minutes of research on the school before dumping 15,000.00 on them. Most of that is done in loans at insane interest rates, so the student does not lose money. They can recoup court costs in civil court so don't lose money there either. Further, what better way of educating people about the ole saying "if something looks too good to be true it probably is".
This is not the same as tricking some poor ole lady out of her life savings. These "students" are trying to take shortcuts and getting suckered because they want shortcuts. It should take a whole 60 seconds to validate a schools accreditation, and another 4 minutes looking in Google to find people complaining about the scam schools.
So a technical job can volunteer for combat duty? No they can't, and if you served you know that. Most military people are not in combat roles, they are in support roles. Unless you retrain and get assigned to a combat unit, you don't get choice. Retraining and reassignment can be blocked for any number of reasons. MOS shortages (real or contrived) being pretty common.
If you are in a support/command unit, you either get deployed or you don't.
I'm not saying I agree with them cheating, I'm pointing out why it happens. It's like all of the officers pushed through jump school even though they shouldn't get their wings. The system is designed so that these things happen, and you don't fix a design problem by punishing the people trying to survive in the system.
2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?
a - Russia
b - Luxembourg
c - New York
d - New Zealand
e - Florida
WTF? You need a "none of the above" and "all of the above" on this one, because everyone knows that New Zealand is the first target for all nuclear superpowers! Screw them and their beautiful islands!
A few companies prefer vets, mostly those that have vets managing and directing. A minority for sure, but they do exist. So it's not "Lots of people!", it's "I hope you can find one of those because they do exist but are very rare."
You are confusing two separate issues, perhaps intentionally.
First, the Military _may_ be overstaffed and maybe not. Sure, we could close some remote bases or seek funding from the countries we are there to supposedly protect instead of paying them to be there. But lets not forget that a whole lot of traditional military work has gone to "Contractors" who have almost zero accountability. I'd rather have soldiers sworn to protect the constitution doing that work. Sure, there are always problems and Abu Graib was horrible. That said, at least some people were punished for it. Unlike Blackwater that has done things at least this bad yet noone gets punished. So perhaps the Military is not so much over staffed as they are used improperly and mismanaged.
The second issue is how promotions work in the Military. If you spent ten years of your life serving and want to continue to retirement you have to make rank. In order to make rank, you have go get points. Those points are nothing simple, and nothing like it exists in the civilian sector that I know of. If your job is a 35R there may be 100 E4 rank jobs, but only 5 jobs at E5 rank, and 1 at E6. If you have spent 12 years serving and can't get E6 in that time you, can't reenlist. Your 12 year investment into a career is gone. And it's not like you get some great civilian job out of 12 years military service. A military mechanic, electrician, etc.. is not considered the same as a civilian and very few of the military certifications count as civilian certifications.
All 100 of the E4s know that they need points to get rank and if they plan to make the military a career they all do the same things. They all go to airborne school, air assault school, work to shoot well and do well on their PT tests. It's little things like these BS tests and ass kissing that get the next rank and let a person continue at their desired career.
Seems like you know jack about the Military on the surface, so I'll point out another huge difference between civilian jobs and military. In the civilian world you can change jobs when ever the hell you want. In the Military you can't do this, you have to serve out your term. This means reserve time after active duty whether you want it or not, in addition to your active time. People that volunteer for a second term have given up a hell of a lot to protect you and your way of life. An attitude like yours ensures that we get shit people in the military, not people who care to do a good job. Considering the true purpose of their job, you don't really don't want shitty people (there even though you may try and claim otherwise).
FYI I am a vet and lived the life. I worked in DOD for 10 years and another 20 in the civilian sector. I can speak to both sides from an educated perspective.
haha, I thought the same. When reading the summary for TFA this one popped into my head.
That's the old hiring practice. The new practice adds the additional question "Are you willing to spy a lot on the American people?"
Can you spy on the American People and play dumb, convincingly before Congress? (They authorized all this but now clamber over each other claiming shock and dismay while attempting to reach for the highest indignation.)
No they didn't. Americans never voted on this crap. Hell, Congress had no time to read the Patriot act until after the vote either. After the fact we all heard about how the terrorist would kill all of our children if we repealed this law instead of having any rational debate.
Now you could claim that American's have been complacent and let things happen, that much I would agree with. This would also explain some of their shock and dismay as they see what the complacency has turned into.
Even that is questionable. One of Obama's Hope and Change speeches claimed that the Patriot act had to go, and that Government needed to be more transparent.
You've got this precisely backwards
Now you claim otherwise. Inventing statements others make and denying your own written statements, good for you.
I'm done. Peace.
My comment was obviously regarding It had nothing about the truth or trying to get there, and seemed to me at the time to be a grossly unethical activity.. It is a historical fact that the Sophists practiced this and made money teaching others to win without concern for truth. It is a historical fact that Socrates despised the Sophists because of those two things, being well documented in both Plato's Dialogues and "The Republic".
You are trying to invent reasons to use the dialectic method as the point. It was not the point, the point was regarding truth. This is obvious to anyone with a third grade reading level based on my second sentence in the two I originally gave.
The "this" was a response to another distinctive statement. The person I responded to did not mention the dialectic either. I did not disagree with that post, I added emphasis to that post. Stop inventing things as an attempt to look intelligent, and simply be intelligent.
There is nothing to be gained from this dialogue, have a nice day.
What I said was very simple, there is no reason to attempt to change their contents. It was two sentences and neither were complex sentences that leave anything to the imagination.
You've got this precisely backwards: Dialectic was Socrates' preferred method, focusing on using rational dialog for the purpose of finding truth, rather than oratorical prowess for the purpose of showing who was the best at rhetoric.
No I don't have it backward. In fact you second my statement, albeit unintentionally, by citing something you don't fully comprehend. Read the first few books of Plato's Dialogue and The Republic and you will see I am correct and you are wrong.
Where this becomes very unstable is when you consider what happens to Military and Police when nukes get used against the populace. If in fact they could somehow feasibly blame it on a terrorist group, that would defeat the purpose of imposing martial law on the citizens. If they took blame and tried to impose martial law, the majority of the military and police would turn against them.
I agree that the bubble has to burst, anyone that evaluates our current debt and fiat situation could understand within minutes. But if the bubble bursts police and military would be lacking paychecks just like the rest of the populace, so again it does not benefit the controllers to have this happen.
It's easy to misdiagnose the problems and ramifications. People tend to use Hitler and Stalin as the template, but there is no correlation. The German economy was in the tank for decades before Hitler rose to power and started generating an economy. We could say similar about Lenin and Stalin, who had a populace that had nothing for a very long time.
I'm not claiming it's impossible mind you, but rather improbable when considering all of the impact to doing something this extreme.
There are other conspiracy theories that tell a similar story to the nukes and using bluebeam/haarp to make it look like aliens were attacking and nuking. Again, possible but not probable because this would have to be done world wide by every major government in order to work.
Sorry, but you are just as wrong as the person I responded to. When Socrates lays out "The Republic" it is very clear that all members of society would be trained in Philosophy. He points out that certain people will be better at Philosophy, just like certain people would be better at being Bakers or Farmers. The best Philosophers would be representatives in the Republic (Socrates's definition including truthful), but this had nothing to do with "class", lineage, gender, or race.
Socrates had no restrictions placed on a person for their jobs and duties, except that the Republic should ensure that society can survive. I.E. If everyone in society chose to be a Farmer, their society will perish.
Read the "whole" and don't pull out fragments that suit what you want to hear and portray.
This was the method of the Sophists, and the reason that Socrates despised them. Truth should be the goal, not winning.
Remember, the central meaning of life is to gain power, of which everyone does in ever little thing they do.
Obviously you are a very shallow and mentally disturbed person. No need to read the rest of your post. If this was meant as a joke you should have indicated such. As it is, you appear to be a very deranged person writing some sort of deranged manifesto.
Going out pretty far into unrealistic/questionable conspiracy theory here, but the method discussed amongst that crowd is not to wait until a revolt is in progress. Use the nuke as a false flag operation, blame them nasty other guys, then implement a police state since the populace would already be decimated. That crowd will also claim it's part of a depopulation plan for the world.
This of course is also not very sensible, because if "them bad guys" set off nukes in US cities it would leave the US weak and depopulate a country already in decline.
I don't agree with those theories mind you, just read enough about them to have some knowledge.
In defense of the "Majority" what has been happening in media should be expected. As you point out, "News" used to keep things in check (at least to some extent). People are searching now for alternative media because the media is all on the same team and covering and distracting, not keeping the corruption in check. The "established media" gives big business the same benefits they give the Government.
The majority has figured this out. Not only is Congress and the Presidents trust at an all time low, but established media is just as low. If the media was not monopolized any "News" station would make a mint by behaving like the NBC and ABC of the 1970s. They are monopolized so they all behave the same way, most news comes from the AP, and people are frustrated. Not only with things like interrupting a member of Congress with "breaking news about a celebrity", but how that example becomes it's own story "Breaking news! CNN interrupts member of congress with breaking news about a celebrity" so we end up with nothing of value.
The complete end of media happened not very long ago. If you search for Detroit and Steve Smith you will find the end. He was an investigative reporter which had massive ratings in Detroit and he broke lots of Kwami Kilpatrick corruption stories. Other "News" stations had their own investigative journalists trying to compete. Kwami had to flee office if you remember and is now serving jail time (not after completely destroying Detroit, but that's not the point). During the peak of the investigations, all of Detroit's investigative journalists were canned. The "for the money" excuse people had in other areas simply didn't work with these reporters because they were what was selling the "News". What is interesting is that near the same time every other major "News" outlet lost their investigative journalists as well. A few local Radio stations spent some time trying to figure out why this happened, but I think this is self evident today.
Long story short, people are searching for the truth and simply don't know where to find it. What's on TV has become only propaganda and people have caught on. LeftyJournal can take advantage of the same things TV News has become, as can RightyJournal. They may cover just enough to be a distraction for a while, but people will catch on there too. The sites that seem to do the best offer dialogue from both sides, but those are very rare.
But pressing "CTRL+B" to make bold text is harder in LO/OO than in Microsoft, really! [/snark]
I think you should go back and read what they wrote again, because you missed about 90% of what they said. They said for advance features MS may be better but 90% of the users don't need those features.
Another point is that you imply that they can't compare OO to MS because they switched to OO, but somehow you can because you switched to MS. Boggle.