So what do _you_ get by riding the proverbial bus off the cliff? Think about that long and hard, in parallel with what I mentioned about the real issue being derailed. It's not _you_ that benefits from the debate, and in fact society as a whole has no benefit. In reality a couple people with a whole lot of money benefit, and the rest of us end up suffering.
It doesn't take running off the cliff to make changes, it takes enough intellectual people to say "enough is enough" and convince the masses to revolt.
Maybe in your world police record everything, but I have worked with (not for) police and law enforcement for decades. Will their training tell them they should record everything? Yeah, but what we are told to do and what works in reality are normally two different things.
Well, if they are not keeping record of how the person was originally reported C would be of no relevance. Kind of like when an Anonymous person calls the cops because of a suspicious guy taking money from people in cars and returning small baggies, the cops may or may not enter that as evidence. In many cases they don't because it's of no value to the case.
In the case of all these cameras however, the public should be demanding to know how much impact it has since they are paying for it. It's quite possible they didn't know that the program existed, or the extent of the program. Look at how Seattle reacted. (Link to Seattle issue just in case.)
Which should make you question why we are continuing to argue Global Warming versus Climate damage by human causes which we can prove and know exists.
In the early 1970s we all heard about how we were messing up the world with pollution. Ocean dead zones have grown by leaps and bounds since somehow the topic was diverted from "clean shit up" to "global warming". We could say the same for massive amounts of pollution on the land, water supplies, oceanic garbage pits, deforestation and destruction of terrain, uninhabitable zone increases, etc...
It should also beg the question regarding geoengineering which has been happening without much public knowledge. But hey, you were right about that "Global Warming". Now can we get back to the real problem instead of yelling about how right we are?
Science is not like politics.
That is an arguable statement, because what gets published and gets attention _is_ political. I think I'd agree that long ago your statement was true, but certainly not within the last decade or so.
And before you jump to an incorrect conclusion, I have never been an advocate for either Global Warming or it's counter. I have said for a very long time that it's the wrong argument to be having numerous times and numerous places including here. I'm glad you can believe you won an argument, but there is plenty left to debate and try to resolve.
So the question that follows is: Are your improvements from Keynesian policies? I am pretty sure that the answer to that is "no", at least if you understand what those policies are.
You have to go up a bit, but I stated above that Government spending is normal. This spending is not "welfare" in the Western sense, but what we expect our taxes to go to. Military spending, Education, Police, Law Makers, etc.. Spending from taxes is not "Keynesian", it is normal and expected.
Keynesian policies require the Government to continually borrow money to spend more. No just spend tax revenue, but spend what they don't have. The claim is that the interest is beneficial to society, as is the debt the Government owes.
I think you missed the obvious point. If an incandescent bulb fries, it's a.40c replacement. When the new bulbs fry, it's $15.00 to replace it. And I believe we were told that as adoption grew these bulbs would become more economical. That has not happened, at least to a level that is comparable.
In fairness, our media does not talk about Brazil's economy. Hell, it rarely talks about our own economy. The links you provided here are what I was looking for actually. An improving wealth disparity position would require a growing middle class number. I don't see those stats on Wiki
Back on point, I think there may be some confusion on the use and term of Keynesian policies in Brazil and their application vs. Western application. If I'm not mistaken, Brazil has taken large amounts of wealth from people to redistribute the wealth and is still a government controlled economy. Probably more similar to China's "market socialism" than the US Capitalism.
This makes what they do, very different from what the US can do with taxes.
Ahh, to hell with public education and trying to improve infrastructure. "Do it or else!" is the way to go right? Of course it's only light bulbs we are talking about right? I mean, those same mentalities don't translate to other areas of our lives like political activism or practicing a Religion right?
No harm ever comes from this way of thinking right?
So do you agree that their policies are not Keynesian as the paper I provided shows?
Can you provide a source for the improving wealth disparity you claim? Wiki shows this as steady, just like continued problems with corruption and taxes that target the poor. There is very little middle class in Brazil to my knowledge, maybe you have a data source that I can't find.
Looking at Brazil's GDP there is no growth. I'm not sure how you are measuring to claim Keynesian is a success.
Looking at unemployment rates, it depends on the portion you are looking at. While the rate of unemployment dropped, so did the wages of the lower class. Factoid.
Brazil by it's own terms is called "Post Keynesian" because Keynesian principles pretty much failed. I'll give a link in a moment, but want to make sure you pay attention to what the document claims and not the titles. Such as...Aggregate demand constraint - As we have already stressed, a laissez-faire market economy does not create a level of aggregate demand consistent with full employment. and the whole of Inflation constraint. Here is the link.
You are trying to twist the meaning of my post, which I guess is fair since I did not explicitly give the reason for the link. I don't think very many misunderstand what I linked and why, but you obviously do.
So lets ask the pertinent questions. Why did I link an article where the Military is using sock puppets? Did you read what I linked?
You claimed that the Government would only use sites like Slashdot for MITM attacks. You hinted after that they could read your posts to make connections to unfriendly groups or actions. The article I posted explicitly states that the Military contract was for "Manipulating Social Media". So the article shows that your two assertions are absolutely wrong.
I did not question TFA's link, I specifically stated that you were wrong with your reason for justification. Simple.
To claim that programs exist only to read data denies facts. With everything critical of the administrations becoming "classified" you can't know that these programs are extended or ended.
Have the courts already ruled that there is an expectation of privacy while a person is in public? The fact that they have is not difficult to find, so there is no real need to expand on that point. I could have explained the language paradox better, but there is no compelling reason to do so.
If you don't do anything to protect society from what you know is wrong and simply claim "well, it was coming anyway" what are you? I think "sheep" in this case is a nicer term than many others I can think of.
I would not go that far since I'm sure a special case may exist, but that's exactly what it would be for. Hence the 'no massive wide scale adoption' or 'applications written for this' becomes an (what should be) obvious outcome.
If I'm custom Joe and see a workload that benefits from 32 vs. 64bit OS constraints I load a 32bit OS. The reason we went to larger memory however means those special cases are extremely rare today. They happen more because "we can't get new hardware" than by choice.
Hey, you know what? That was childish and uncalled for. I'm going to be the bigger person here and ignore it.
Did I not present dialogue to show the remainder of the thought where you simply insulted the majority of "average" people? You recognize that I am correct with what I state later on, so obviously this is not intended as "childish". If you are resentful or angered by an expansion of your statements why do you agree with what I stated? Is it perhaps a bit curt for your liking? If so, perhaps consider the bigger picture in your own statements in the future. You claim to be enlightened, so please enlighten us with your wisdom.
Can't say I disagree, save for the needless playground insults there at the end.
If you are insulted, then perhaps you are reading a personal where there is only a general observation. There was no personal attack in that sentence. If you feel that statement is an affront, there has to be a reason outside of the generalization I wrote.
I don't blame them for "being lied to," I blame them for not only being stupid enough to believe such blatant bullshit, but to also insist, often with the threat of violence, that ALL Americans acquiesce to those aforementioned people's specific ideologies.
_YOU_ have the means and will to look outside for information. Can you say the same for the rest of the public that only gets one reality, and it's not yours or mine? I used to be more like that, but as I began to explore more and gained some wisdom, I see the world a bit differently. How many US citizens know what "The Allegory of the Cave" is? How many have the means to investigate? The real answer to that is very few, and almost as few. This is why teaching and talking becomes so important. Do you know how many people I have woken up with that one piece of work from Plato/Socrates within a few minutes? Hundreds easily.
No, I don't cut a lot of slack. Know why? Because I've been hearing all the same lies as everyone else, but I'm smart enough to know that, when I think I'm being bullshitted, I should do some research and verify what I'm being told. Because I'm not one of those low-information, preach-to-the-choir, narcissistic asshole voters.
The game is not about _you_, and that is something I am not sure you understand. The game is much bigger than that. I never claimed you were low information, I claimed that you presented half the story. I supplied a big portion of the missing story. I also gave credible statements as to why the "I despise the average" is not productive.
An asshole, sure, but an honest, informed, and straightforward one.
I can come across the same way, but not for the same reasons. Usually it's not having patience with people that think they are enlightened who in reality either are not, or are extremely unproductive with their knowledge. Blaming "them" does not solve the problem, won't solve the problem, and can't solve the problem. It has never done so, and never will do so. Do you think that "Free Knowledge" that people like Socrates and various Religious people have preached has no meaning? No consequences? If you are truly enlightened, you will understand that that is exactly the game being played.
Try using your had just a little bit. Would the Constitution and Bill of Rights be written so that you, or any "person", can violate my rights while the Government can not? That is what you are trying to claim by looking at a specific sentence that backs your view, instead of looking at the larger philosophical and legal meanings of "Law", "Justice", and even "Guarantee of Rights".
If you truly have such a belief, I can only feel pity for someone that ignorant. If you are a shill attempting to diminish the law, shame on you.
The concepts of a Republic are all found in a marvelous work called "The Republic", maybe it's time to read that book (not an excerpt you find on Google). "The Dialogues of Plato" will be helpful in your understanding as well. From there, try reading the Federalist Papers and Constitution again.
Nothing like knowing half the facts to back a half a thought.
It's easy to blame the American voter, but not so easy to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. Let us gander at what has changed in the last 30 years, and how has that impacted our ability to discuss and debate issues?
1. Media Monopolization - 30 years ago, it was possible to see alternative views. Milton Friedman was on numerous TV shows, and it gained those media outlets ratings and money. Today, you will hear no such alternative views on economics on TV shows. You get Miley and other nonsense, so can't think about a different way of doing things unless you are intelligent enough to go out looking. The majority of the population does not have that ambition or level of intelligence.
2. Take over of all parties - 30 years ago, where was some differences between Democrats and Republicans. We had a 3rd party that nearly won a presidential election even though he was being blackmailed by Republicans. A whopping 1 person went to jail over the blackmail, and very few people heard anything about this happening. See item 1.
3. Militarization of Police - 30 years ago, we could March on DC and be heard. Today, you are jailed on the bus *IF*, and only *IF* you are lucky enough to hear about a political rally due to item 1. Protesters are tried by the media (also see item 1) long before a court, and the only thing people hear about in regards to a protestor is what the media want's them to hear (again see item 1).
4. Our education system has been corrupted. Why don't you know? See item 1. What can you do about it? Petition and teach people to think critically. You won't, most likely. Due to item 1 again, many self proclaimed intellects can't recognize a fallacy that's punching them in the nose.
In short, there is a lot of things we need to change. Blaming the people who are lied to and have no alternative reality to investigate and contemplate are not fully to blame. You start knocking on doors, talking and teaching and see the result. I do this every day, and it's slow going. More and more we need to teach and be vocal because item 1 is such a huge advantage to the bad guys.
Or don't, simply hide and pretend there is nothing going on. You can't win a game you refuse to play, but you sure as hell can lose it.
To claim that it does not happen, when we have evidence that it does happen is beyond idiotic. It is complete and utter bullshit (either intentional or from ignorance.
Wrong, and quite frankly not even a good try. All members of society are bound by these same basic rules called the Constitution, which is the whole point of having Law. The US Constitution prevents you from stopping me from owning a gun just as it prevents the Government from doing the same. It prevents you from stopping my free speech, just like it prevents the Government from doing this. Your failure to recognize this fact demonstrates quite a bit.
It is a violation of my rights to privacy, and is illegal. It may not be defined as assault, but it is still illegal. The state will have this technology and use it if you continue to be a sheep and follow along. Perhaps it's time to wake up to the game and start playing. You can't win if you don't play, but you can absolutely lose if you don't play.
That is interesting, but not a feasible way of looking at the issue. Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy.
The same could be said with any of the snooping that's being done. We are not looking at the problem in the correct way.
Now one may argue that if I'm in public I have no privacy, but previous court cases have proven this to be false. Unless I am doing something wrong, a person can not demand to see my papers (name, ID card, etc..). This is why the judge slapped the NYPD and removed "Stop and Frisk" from their abilities.
A person may argue further that Google is not the Police, but what data would a person with Google Glass have on me? My name, my posts, my friends and relationships, etc.. Enough to know my political standings at a minimum.
When people like Bill Gates and Larry Page give us full access to their lives, I might believe some of their bullshit about "well if you don't have anything to hide". They don't, they are liars, and they can all go pound some sand.
It's funny how you credit me with works by people like Nobel Prize recipient Milton Friedman. I can read and comprehend his work well enough, but lay no claim to authoring his works. You on the other hand can't read, yet imply superior knowledge of economics. I smell a shill.
Further claiming "we can't catch those guys no matter what" contradicts the claim "we need this program". Any claim otherwise is pure idiocy, but good luck in your shilling career.
I guess you did not really contemplate what I stated regarding what it would take for the data to be a scientific study. Those are not studies, those are opinion pieces that use specific statistics to bolster the opinion that social safety nets are good. In order for there to be a study, there would need to be a true capitalist republic to measure against, and we don't have any of those. The US used to be close to that ideal, and if you measure the economy as a whole from 1950-1970 you have something close. Once you hit the Nixon years it all went down the shitter. All "Western" countries have followed the Keynesian principles from roughly the same time.
Now think again, and show me in the World Bank paper where they measured against a country that does not follow the debt policies of Keynesian economics. I'm not going to wait, there is no such comparison. It is pure opinion, not science.
Further, it is using false data to draw their conclusion. Look at Page 4 you will see that their claim simply denies facts. Show me where total poverty has been decreased under Keynesian economics. Show me where the median income vs. inflation has improved. Show me where wealth disparity has improved. You won't find any such thing, yet this is what is assumed in order to move right on the graph and the paper assumes incorrectly that those programs lead to the right. It's rubbish!
I'll say again, that under certain circumstances social safety nets can have value. What they can't have is a prosperous outcome, and it should only take a basic level of reasoning to make that determination. If you go to the bank and borrow money, you are in debt. You can go to a different bank to take out loans to pay the interest, but you don't get out of debt this way. You simply move the debt around. At a certain point, nobody will loan you money any longer. People falsely claim that Governments are immune to this, because they print money. The Weimar Republic should be enough proof that Governments are absolutely not immune, and the default has a catastrophic effect on society. If you believe it can only happen in a history book, look at Greece.
To be less of a dick (pardon me) The Clapper testimony stated that they could not see personal data. That statement is exactly the definition of anonymous. Whether they used the term 'anonymous' or not is not relevant to the point. The point was that they claimed they could not see your personal data, and if they accidentally did they would remove it and not use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Look here you insensitive clod. That book is banned in China just like Battlefield 4, they can't use it for a manual if they can't read the thing!
So what do _you_ get by riding the proverbial bus off the cliff? Think about that long and hard, in parallel with what I mentioned about the real issue being derailed. It's not _you_ that benefits from the debate, and in fact society as a whole has no benefit. In reality a couple people with a whole lot of money benefit, and the rest of us end up suffering.
It doesn't take running off the cliff to make changes, it takes enough intellectual people to say "enough is enough" and convince the masses to revolt.
Maybe in your world police record everything, but I have worked with (not for) police and law enforcement for decades. Will their training tell them they should record everything? Yeah, but what we are told to do and what works in reality are normally two different things.
Well, if they are not keeping record of how the person was originally reported C would be of no relevance. Kind of like when an Anonymous person calls the cops because of a suspicious guy taking money from people in cars and returning small baggies, the cops may or may not enter that as evidence. In many cases they don't because it's of no value to the case.
In the case of all these cameras however, the public should be demanding to know how much impact it has since they are paying for it. It's quite possible they didn't know that the program existed, or the extent of the program. Look at how Seattle reacted. (Link to Seattle issue just in case.)
Which should make you question why we are continuing to argue Global Warming versus Climate damage by human causes which we can prove and know exists.
In the early 1970s we all heard about how we were messing up the world with pollution. Ocean dead zones have grown by leaps and bounds since somehow the topic was diverted from "clean shit up" to "global warming". We could say the same for massive amounts of pollution on the land, water supplies, oceanic garbage pits, deforestation and destruction of terrain, uninhabitable zone increases, etc...
It should also beg the question regarding geoengineering which has been happening without much public knowledge. But hey, you were right about that "Global Warming". Now can we get back to the real problem instead of yelling about how right we are?
Science is not like politics.
That is an arguable statement, because what gets published and gets attention _is_ political. I think I'd agree that long ago your statement was true, but certainly not within the last decade or so.
And before you jump to an incorrect conclusion, I have never been an advocate for either Global Warming or it's counter. I have said for a very long time that it's the wrong argument to be having numerous times and numerous places including here. I'm glad you can believe you won an argument, but there is plenty left to debate and try to resolve.
So the question that follows is: Are your improvements from Keynesian policies? I am pretty sure that the answer to that is "no", at least if you understand what those policies are.
You have to go up a bit, but I stated above that Government spending is normal. This spending is not "welfare" in the Western sense, but what we expect our taxes to go to. Military spending, Education, Police, Law Makers, etc.. Spending from taxes is not "Keynesian", it is normal and expected.
Keynesian policies require the Government to continually borrow money to spend more. No just spend tax revenue, but spend what they don't have. The claim is that the interest is beneficial to society, as is the debt the Government owes.
I think you missed the obvious point. If an incandescent bulb fries, it's a .40c replacement. When the new bulbs fry, it's $15.00 to replace it. And I believe we were told that as adoption grew these bulbs would become more economical. That has not happened, at least to a level that is comparable.
In fairness, our media does not talk about Brazil's economy. Hell, it rarely talks about our own economy. The links you provided here are what I was looking for actually. An improving wealth disparity position would require a growing middle class number. I don't see those stats on Wiki
Back on point, I think there may be some confusion on the use and term of Keynesian policies in Brazil and their application vs. Western application. If I'm not mistaken, Brazil has taken large amounts of wealth from people to redistribute the wealth and is still a government controlled economy. Probably more similar to China's "market socialism" than the US Capitalism.
This makes what they do, very different from what the US can do with taxes.
Ahh, to hell with public education and trying to improve infrastructure. "Do it or else!" is the way to go right? Of course it's only light bulbs we are talking about right? I mean, those same mentalities don't translate to other areas of our lives like political activism or practicing a Religion right?
No harm ever comes from this way of thinking right?
So do you agree that their policies are not Keynesian as the paper I provided shows?
Can you provide a source for the improving wealth disparity you claim? Wiki shows this as steady, just like continued problems with corruption and taxes that target the poor. There is very little middle class in Brazil to my knowledge, maybe you have a data source that I can't find.
Brazil is not an example.
Looking at Brazil's GDP there is no growth. I'm not sure how you are measuring to claim Keynesian is a success.
Looking at unemployment rates, it depends on the portion you are looking at. While the rate of unemployment dropped, so did the wages of the lower class. Factoid.
Wealth disparity in Brazil is one of the worst in the world.
Brazil by it's own terms is called "Post Keynesian" because Keynesian principles pretty much failed. I'll give a link in a moment, but want to make sure you pay attention to what the document claims and not the titles. Such as...Aggregate demand constraint - As we have already stressed, a laissez-faire market economy does not create a level of aggregate demand consistent with full employment. and the whole of Inflation constraint. Here is the link.
You are trying to twist the meaning of my post, which I guess is fair since I did not explicitly give the reason for the link. I don't think very many misunderstand what I linked and why, but you obviously do.
So lets ask the pertinent questions. Why did I link an article where the Military is using sock puppets? Did you read what I linked?
You claimed that the Government would only use sites like Slashdot for MITM attacks. You hinted after that they could read your posts to make connections to unfriendly groups or actions. The article I posted explicitly states that the Military contract was for "Manipulating Social Media". So the article shows that your two assertions are absolutely wrong.
I did not question TFA's link, I specifically stated that you were wrong with your reason for justification. Simple.
To claim that programs exist only to read data denies facts. With everything critical of the administrations becoming "classified" you can't know that these programs are extended or ended.
Have the courts already ruled that there is an expectation of privacy while a person is in public? The fact that they have is not difficult to find, so there is no real need to expand on that point. I could have explained the language paradox better, but there is no compelling reason to do so.
If you don't do anything to protect society from what you know is wrong and simply claim "well, it was coming anyway" what are you? I think "sheep" in this case is a nicer term than many others I can think of.
If you don't understand that what you are claiming are studies, are in fact not studies yes it is wise to let it go.
I would not go that far since I'm sure a special case may exist, but that's exactly what it would be for. Hence the 'no massive wide scale adoption' or 'applications written for this' becomes an (what should be) obvious outcome.
If I'm custom Joe and see a workload that benefits from 32 vs. 64bit OS constraints I load a 32bit OS. The reason we went to larger memory however means those special cases are extremely rare today. They happen more because "we can't get new hardware" than by choice.
Hey, you know what? That was childish and uncalled for. I'm going to be the bigger person here and ignore it.
Did I not present dialogue to show the remainder of the thought where you simply insulted the majority of "average" people? You recognize that I am correct with what I state later on, so obviously this is not intended as "childish". If you are resentful or angered by an expansion of your statements why do you agree with what I stated? Is it perhaps a bit curt for your liking? If so, perhaps consider the bigger picture in your own statements in the future. You claim to be enlightened, so please enlighten us with your wisdom.
Can't say I disagree, save for the needless playground insults there at the end.
If you are insulted, then perhaps you are reading a personal where there is only a general observation. There was no personal attack in that sentence. If you feel that statement is an affront, there has to be a reason outside of the generalization I wrote.
I don't blame them for "being lied to," I blame them for not only being stupid enough to believe such blatant bullshit, but to also insist, often with the threat of violence, that ALL Americans acquiesce to those aforementioned people's specific ideologies.
_YOU_ have the means and will to look outside for information. Can you say the same for the rest of the public that only gets one reality, and it's not yours or mine? I used to be more like that, but as I began to explore more and gained some wisdom, I see the world a bit differently. How many US citizens know what "The Allegory of the Cave" is? How many have the means to investigate? The real answer to that is very few, and almost as few. This is why teaching and talking becomes so important. Do you know how many people I have woken up with that one piece of work from Plato/Socrates within a few minutes? Hundreds easily.
No, I don't cut a lot of slack. Know why? Because I've been hearing all the same lies as everyone else, but I'm smart enough to know that, when I think I'm being bullshitted, I should do some research and verify what I'm being told. Because I'm not one of those low-information, preach-to-the-choir, narcissistic asshole voters.
The game is not about _you_, and that is something I am not sure you understand. The game is much bigger than that. I never claimed you were low information, I claimed that you presented half the story. I supplied a big portion of the missing story. I also gave credible statements as to why the "I despise the average" is not productive.
An asshole, sure, but an honest, informed, and straightforward one.
I can come across the same way, but not for the same reasons. Usually it's not having patience with people that think they are enlightened who in reality either are not, or are extremely unproductive with their knowledge. Blaming "them" does not solve the problem, won't solve the problem, and can't solve the problem. It has never done so, and never will do so. Do you think that "Free Knowledge" that people like Socrates and various Religious people have preached has no meaning? No consequences? If you are truly enlightened, you will understand that that is exactly the game being played.
Try using your had just a little bit. Would the Constitution and Bill of Rights be written so that you, or any "person", can violate my rights while the Government can not? That is what you are trying to claim by looking at a specific sentence that backs your view, instead of looking at the larger philosophical and legal meanings of "Law", "Justice", and even "Guarantee of Rights".
If you truly have such a belief, I can only feel pity for someone that ignorant. If you are a shill attempting to diminish the law, shame on you.
The concepts of a Republic are all found in a marvelous work called "The Republic", maybe it's time to read that book (not an excerpt you find on Google). "The Dialogues of Plato" will be helpful in your understanding as well. From there, try reading the Federalist Papers and Constitution again.
Nothing like knowing half the facts to back a half a thought.
It's easy to blame the American voter, but not so easy to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. Let us gander at what has changed in the last 30 years, and how has that impacted our ability to discuss and debate issues?
1. Media Monopolization - 30 years ago, it was possible to see alternative views. Milton Friedman was on numerous TV shows, and it gained those media outlets ratings and money. Today, you will hear no such alternative views on economics on TV shows. You get Miley and other nonsense, so can't think about a different way of doing things unless you are intelligent enough to go out looking. The majority of the population does not have that ambition or level of intelligence.
2. Take over of all parties - 30 years ago, where was some differences between Democrats and Republicans. We had a 3rd party that nearly won a presidential election even though he was being blackmailed by Republicans. A whopping 1 person went to jail over the blackmail, and very few people heard anything about this happening. See item 1.
3. Militarization of Police - 30 years ago, we could March on DC and be heard. Today, you are jailed on the bus *IF*, and only *IF* you are lucky enough to hear about a political rally due to item 1. Protesters are tried by the media (also see item 1) long before a court, and the only thing people hear about in regards to a protestor is what the media want's them to hear (again see item 1).
4. Our education system has been corrupted. Why don't you know? See item 1. What can you do about it? Petition and teach people to think critically. You won't, most likely. Due to item 1 again, many self proclaimed intellects can't recognize a fallacy that's punching them in the nose.
In short, there is a lot of things we need to change. Blaming the people who are lied to and have no alternative reality to investigate and contemplate are not fully to blame. You start knocking on doors, talking and teaching and see the result. I do this every day, and it's slow going. More and more we need to teach and be vocal because item 1 is such a huge advantage to the bad guys.
Or don't, simply hide and pretend there is nothing going on. You can't win a game you refuse to play, but you sure as hell can lose it.
How quickly we forget things like this right?
To claim that it does not happen, when we have evidence that it does happen is beyond idiotic. It is complete and utter bullshit (either intentional or from ignorance.
Wrong, and quite frankly not even a good try. All members of society are bound by these same basic rules called the Constitution, which is the whole point of having Law. The US Constitution prevents you from stopping me from owning a gun just as it prevents the Government from doing the same. It prevents you from stopping my free speech, just like it prevents the Government from doing this. Your failure to recognize this fact demonstrates quite a bit.
It is a violation of my rights to privacy, and is illegal. It may not be defined as assault, but it is still illegal. The state will have this technology and use it if you continue to be a sheep and follow along. Perhaps it's time to wake up to the game and start playing. You can't win if you don't play, but you can absolutely lose if you don't play.
That is interesting, but not a feasible way of looking at the issue. Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy.
The same could be said with any of the snooping that's being done. We are not looking at the problem in the correct way.
Now one may argue that if I'm in public I have no privacy, but previous court cases have proven this to be false. Unless I am doing something wrong, a person can not demand to see my papers (name, ID card, etc..). This is why the judge slapped the NYPD and removed "Stop and Frisk" from their abilities.
A person may argue further that Google is not the Police, but what data would a person with Google Glass have on me? My name, my posts, my friends and relationships, etc.. Enough to know my political standings at a minimum.
When people like Bill Gates and Larry Page give us full access to their lives, I might believe some of their bullshit about "well if you don't have anything to hide". They don't, they are liars, and they can all go pound some sand.
It's funny how you credit me with works by people like Nobel Prize recipient Milton Friedman. I can read and comprehend his work well enough, but lay no claim to authoring his works. You on the other hand can't read, yet imply superior knowledge of economics. I smell a shill.
Further claiming "we can't catch those guys no matter what" contradicts the claim "we need this program". Any claim otherwise is pure idiocy, but good luck in your shilling career.
I guess you did not really contemplate what I stated regarding what it would take for the data to be a scientific study. Those are not studies, those are opinion pieces that use specific statistics to bolster the opinion that social safety nets are good. In order for there to be a study, there would need to be a true capitalist republic to measure against, and we don't have any of those. The US used to be close to that ideal, and if you measure the economy as a whole from 1950-1970 you have something close. Once you hit the Nixon years it all went down the shitter. All "Western" countries have followed the Keynesian principles from roughly the same time.
Now think again, and show me in the World Bank paper where they measured against a country that does not follow the debt policies of Keynesian economics. I'm not going to wait, there is no such comparison. It is pure opinion, not science.
Further, it is using false data to draw their conclusion. Look at Page 4 you will see that their claim simply denies facts. Show me where total poverty has been decreased under Keynesian economics. Show me where the median income vs. inflation has improved. Show me where wealth disparity has improved. You won't find any such thing, yet this is what is assumed in order to move right on the graph and the paper assumes incorrectly that those programs lead to the right. It's rubbish!
I'll say again, that under certain circumstances social safety nets can have value. What they can't have is a prosperous outcome, and it should only take a basic level of reasoning to make that determination. If you go to the bank and borrow money, you are in debt. You can go to a different bank to take out loans to pay the interest, but you don't get out of debt this way. You simply move the debt around. At a certain point, nobody will loan you money any longer. People falsely claim that Governments are immune to this, because they print money. The Weimar Republic should be enough proof that Governments are absolutely not immune, and the default has a catastrophic effect on society. If you believe it can only happen in a history book, look at Greece.
To be less of a dick (pardon me) The Clapper testimony stated that they could not see personal data. That statement is exactly the definition of anonymous. Whether they used the term 'anonymous' or not is not relevant to the point. The point was that they claimed they could not see your personal data, and if they accidentally did they would remove it and not use it.