The Presidential speeches reference many topics and a main topic. To claim that they don't contain what is written and stated because it's not of the topic you believe to be the main topic is illogical and irrational.
Further, to claim these guys didn't know what they were writing or saying is also illogical and irrational. These guys spend a lot of time writing and practicing speeches, they have professionals that help them write them, and there is tremendous study of every statement through Philosophical eyes (rhetoric, symbolic logic, etc..). They know exactly what they are stating and why.
Neither of these guys simply mentioned the conspiracy, they spent large fractions of their speech on them. JFK was a full 1/3rd, Eisenhower was roughly 1/2. Honestly, if you grasp what was just stated you will realize that the only reason to discount the words of these Presidents is to maintain a delusion and prevent cognitive dissonance. Well, that and the majority of people don't know what these guys said, they just took someone's word for it that it was "nothing".
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged i
No as I am a polite person and feel an obligation to interact with someone trying to interact with me. I can ignore computers just fine.
And you are more comfortable with a technology you can't interact with or direct in any way intruding into your eyes and ears? Something is broken, and it's not me.
The Information Commissioner's Office [ico.org.uk] has nothing to do with the GCHQ [wikipedia.org] so why are you mixing them together?
I mentioned that secret courts would prevent your knowledge of collusion, you said you could not find any links of secret courts ( can't find anything on secret medical courts.). I'm not going to research everything for you, sorry. I took a quick stab at what would be the most relevant point in the discussion which is this. You don't know because the Government prevents you from seeing what it's doing.
Asking a question is not an attack, it's a question. Care for me to rephrase it? Here you go: "Can you be so daft as to believe that you can scrutinize what you have no knowledge of?" While it is leading, the only way you would be the victim of an ad hominem is to believe such an irrational possibility.
Sorry, but if you ignore the secret courts that do exist in both the USA and Britain you can't know their rulings. You don't know the evidence they hear, the requests that are made, or the verdicts they put out.
Back to your other point, you do know that Wifi units were put on rubbish bins to track people. Do you really believe the bullshit line put out by the company as to "why" it was being done? I won't ask the leading daft question again, but you should consider it strongly.
The leaks have created diplomatic problems that are likely to prevent effective intervention against the smuggling.
That is still a false dilemma! Did Australia claim that they will no longer prosecute or investigate human trafficking in Australia? (smuggling is a different term for the same thing, don't bother trying to "straw man" the terminology.) Did any other country, including Indonesia, claim that they would no longer investigate or prosecute human trafficking based on the leaks in their own country? The answer to both of those questions is "NO".
Are you going to somehow claim that Australia can no longer patrol their borders and look for barges shipping refuges into Australia because of the leak? Are you going to somehow claim that Indonesia will no longer investigate outbound boats and floating things because of the leaks? I don't think you would be so poor at debate as to make such a claim, but just in case: The analogy would be claiming that the USA will no longer prosecute drug crimes because Columbia drops a joint venture. Or that the USA can no longer investigate without such a venture.
Now you could rightly and rationally claim that the joint investigation mentioned will stop, but how much impact does that have? You don't know! It should have almost no impact, or very low impact, assuming that each home country still works within their own respective jurisdictions (see the drug analogy above).
Compound fallacies are allowed and not uncommon in propaganda war. What the poster stated was exactly a compound fallacy. If they would have said "child sex trafficking" it would have been more obvious, but the human trafficking due to the leak is the same thing (just less obvious).
You have seen all of the chat logs and pertinent data to ensure that there was no entrapment?
Like the person you responded to, I find the concept of sex with children to be revolting. That said, they claim her profile was of a 10 year old. The picture looks a bit younger than 10 in my opinion, but we know from the Treyvon Martin case that they don't always show reality. Perhaps this picture was only somewhere in the profile, and not the main picture. What if the profile picture was a scantily dressed 18 year old? What if the police posing as the kid started offering sex? Offered to pose naked? I believe that a reasonable person seeing the picture they gave in the article would leave the site. With a different picture I find it easy for someone to convince themselves that the listed age was a mistake.
On the surface I agree with them arresting the alleged criminals. That said, I have seen enough to make me distrust what media and certain agencies release as automatically true. There is no evidence given for or against entrapment, so it should not be dismissed without facts.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
I think the more shocking aspect is how much collusion there is with the espionage, not the espionage itself. It's as if there is no separation between the US, UK, Australia, Italy, and Germany intelligence agencies.
People have been telling about a group trying to create a new world government right under your noses. Not just those "wacky" people like Alex Jones and Gary Allen, but Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower said the same thing. If you look at the collusion here suddenly all those "wacko conspiracy people" are not so wacko.
I get bored in lines and if there are advertising that I am interesded in displayed I will be more entertained. I can do without adds for tampons and justin bieber albums. That is the usefulness to me.
What benefit are some people being denied. The benefit of seeing ads they are not interested in?
Would you not be better served by a worker that you can say "no thanks" to as opposed to a CCTV system that will scan your face and pop up ads as you browse for your butter as it feels fit, not as you see fit? I think you are making my argument for me, though you may not realize it. The "automated" system will not be yours to turn off as you see fit, it turns on as the company sees fit.
Reference please. Where is your proof that the government was involved when it was the government that found it and stopped it.
No, I am claiming that they will be easily caught and stopped if they tried it.
Because everything that the GCHQ does is public information available for you to scrutinize? Even if you knew something you would receive data on request? Come now, you can't be that daft can you?
Useful? No, it's not useful. If you believe that it's useful shame on you for having such short vision. I would not claim it's useless, but rather that it is harmful. It takes away the need for a store to have people doing the same job. It infers that discrimination is fine as long as it's a TV monitor discriminating against you and not a person. (If I'm giving Joe a benefit due to age, I'm denying that same benefit to Harry).
That would mean that the company would know whether or not a specific person paid their taxes which is confidential information and the government would be breaking at least one law by releasing that information. They would be taken to court by the many privacy watchdog organizations.
We see that in the UK this works so well against the GCHQ right? Secret medical courts also have a grand track record right?
That was not a government program and the government stopped it [slashdot.org] when they found out.
You are denying that information was collaborated with the UK Government? You are claiming that as long as nobody gets caught it's okay to continue? Come now.
I'm not saying they're monitoring every time a diplomat takes a shit
Actually they probably monitor when, and what's in the shit. What better way of extorting information than "We have the cure for your dysentery right here in this great cabbage Kimchi we made!
Never put shit above shitty people, they tend to fester in the same pools.
Nowhere did you make that claim previously, you just invented it on the spot trying to defend your fallacious arguments. You can't provide a counter argument, you respond with lies and fallacy.
It would not be bad if your lies were actually logical, but "One goal of society is to minimize unnecessary deaths" is absolute rubbish. Show me one definition of society that makes that claim. You won't find it from Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Aquinas, the Pope, Marx, nobody!
Now I can see why you are "Joining Yet Again", your first account(s) were poor on Karma.
Technically you are correct but this version of facial recognition does not match a name to a face. If there is no database to facilitate that all that can be done is match a face to a demographic.
So the company claims right now. Are the cameras incapable of connecting to a computer system which could make such a match? Does the company do any business with the UK government which may wish to make this connection and has said list of names (in addition to other photo's to match against)? Does it require any physical work visible to you to change the system from no-database to yes-database? Again, these are all viable questions worth asking. We have already seen that certain companies are not against this, nor are the Governments (see UK trash bins tracking peoples mobile devices).
Lots more assumptions. Is the computer ever told what that person's name is? Is that specific information ever stored?
I agree Can you claim your assumptions of "no evil" are better than my assumptions of "potential evil"? You could, but not in a clear and rational sense. I'm only pointing to the questions that we should be asking and why these things are potentially bad.
Where would they get that information if they didn't match a name to a face and have access to my income information?
I agree it's a leap in logic, but it makes sense if you go back to the first paragraph. Could the Government refuse to let the company serve you because you didn't pay your taxes? Again, this is a potential scenario but within the way Networks and technology work.
We also should not ban the practice of giving out candy.
I never claimed we should ban the practice. I stated that certain people are using candy as bait, not as a gift or act of good will. Not recognizing those people for what they are is silly.
Not answering is illegal. It does not matter if it's 1/2, 1/3, or 1/100 requests it is still against the law. Now if NY accepted 2/3ds of a fine as full payment or accepted 2/3rds of your taxes as payment in full maybe they would have some barter room.
Of course we hope that staffing is the issue, but as the guy once said "Never assume". Considering that NYPD had policies like Stop&Frisk, it could very well be that they have people holding offices that just don't give a shit about the law. That lack of regard tends to trickle down to the people they hire.
While funny, the issue is not with a personal password. These are passwords for infrastructure. It's kind of like working for a trucking company and taking the truck keys with you when you quit, except that it sounds like this was a pretty big ass truck (thinking in $$).
Could the company get a new set of passwords? Sure, same as the truck company could get a new set of keys made. But while they were waiting to access their property they lost money at a minimum. Since they were not _your_ trucks or devices you have no right to refuse to give them their keys back.
It's not just in California where housing is insanely priced. Go to Northern Ohio or Detroit and see what life is like there. Perhaps these two areas are the only extremes in the country? I doubt it, I have read similar stories about Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.. Nobody is doing well on average, but technology markets have been doing better than others.
I also agree that numerous segments are holding each other up. That said, 20 years ago you could not have moved the auto industry without collapsing a whole lot of work. That happened, and technology filled in some of those jobs. As wealth disparity and poverty levels in the US indicate, it has not been enough to keep everyone going.
I come from Detroit where Factory jobs if they still exist make less than 15 bucks an hour on average, but nice try. How about Ohio where all of those factory jobs.. oh wait, they have mostly closed and been shipped overseas. I know, the steel workers in factories making.. Fuck not that either!
Look, I get that there are a few decent paying jobs in production. That said, the majority of the factory jobs are no longer in the USA.
We are in for a huge depression. Lets look at where you can currently make a decent living in the USA. Lawyers (for the small percentage that have jobs), Executives (who depend on businesses), Investments, and Technology.
Out of those things, the only one that is productive is technology. We have lost most of our other productivity work to sweat shops overseas and in Mexico. Technology is holding up a whole lot in the economy currently, and no I'm not talking about the NSA. Looking at 1 income households for the most part, but this is true with many 2 income households. People working in technology can afford to purchase houses, a factory worker can no longer do that. A person in technology can afford a new car, a factory worker probably can't. If technology drops, well, nobody will be working in numerous markets. Real estate sales will drop to nothing, which kills all the construction jobs. Auto sales will drop which kills the few remaining automotive jobs in the US (mainly sales and marketing). Investments will collapse as the few that can afford investments already have them and their own people, all of the small investment firms and people will be out of work as well.
Where your thinker is broken is trying to claim that you can have variable amounts of capitalism. You don't! That's like saying we need more Justice. It's illogical, because you either have it or you don't.
Are you really trying to state that we need more regulation? Even handling of economic laws? Justice in prosecuting wrong doing by large businesses? All of those things are viable statements, but none of them change the economic system to "less capitalism" or "more capitalism", we would still be "capitalism".
Or are you arguing that China has a better system? Russia has a better system? You want to move to a "Market Socialism" like China?
You falsely claimed that Russia failed because of capitalism, and it was _never_ using a capitalist economy. It was using State controlled economy just like under Stalin and Lenin. Where they had "social experiments" in capitalism (their terms not mine) if there was success the state took everything over. Those were small isolated bubbles and not the whole economy.
As with Capitalism you can't argue that you need more or less State controlled either. It's one or the other, it can't be part way. If you want to use the experiments as an argument point, think! The state always had control, hence they could pull the plug at will. The Russians figured that game out pretty quickly! You lose!
If I remove the fallacy from your post I see a whole one thought, which is that capitalism is a new concept. This is absolutely false. There have been countless books on the subject starting with Adam Smith who is credited with founding the system of Free Market Capitalism.
More appeal to emotion follows, which I'll ignore and of course you have to close with ad hominem lacking any other method of self perceived intellect or knowledge.
If you don't understand the subject matter you are arguing from ignorance. That is not a fallacy, that is a fact that you seem to find unimportant. Kind of like a person trying to argue that geometry is bad without understanding the work of Pythagoras. I wash my hands of your ignorant rantings against something you have no understanding of.
That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male".
Bullshit! Facial recognition is facial recognition. It's not looking for oval shapes, it's searching for faces. Making a claim like "We don't plan to look to see if it's really Joe" or "we only want to estimate Joe's demographic" does not change what "FACIAL RECOGNITION" is or does.
This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.
More bullshit! The clerk can only see and refer to a single customer at a time, and will deal with so many people that they can't remember them all beyond the duration of a few days. The computer has indefinite memory and can deal with numerous people simultaneously.
The who what and where of how the data is used is the concern. "We won't use it in a negative way" is the same thing as "Joe makes 50.00 per hour, so gets a multiplier on purchases", or "Joe pissed off the clerk and we had something stolen that day, lets harass Joe". They are all hypothetical situations, any of those _could_ be valid.
When you continually see that people offer candy to kids to get them into the van, you should stop trusting that all these people are doing is handing out candy.
I think you need to look up the concept of greed since it's not a singular thing like "red". Greed would lead to numerous things such as hoarding, harming others for personal gain, etc... Nitpicking a definition does not change a thing, it makes you look silly.
Your ad hoc dialogue trying to compare an economy to a diet is not rational. You still ignore the premises that I gave. 1. Corruption is the root of the problem, not Capitalism. 2. A function of Government is supposed to regulate and prevent power vacuums.
Corruption will always be there. I never said that capitalism was the problem. You're obviously a religious capitalist and have to construct and tear down this straw man at every opportunity in the name of the Invisible Hand.
Here you are claiming that we should accept corruption in order to remove it from the dialogue. That is a ludicrous claim you realize. Corruption in capitalism leads to unfair laws and unfair treatment. In other systems that corruption is built in and leads to unfair laws and unfair treatment. In both cases corruption is the problem, not the economic system being leveraged. You don't deny the corruption in any system, you simply say "they are all corrupt so fuck it" which does not take it away, it stalls the inevitable cleaning up of the corruption.
You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system!
We're talking about the USSR, not communism. "The USSR was communist therefore it wasn't state capitalist," is not an argument.
You stated that "Leninism degenerated into capitalism". You were not talking about the USSR, and now you deny your own words! I smell a strong delusional force!
They can't, unless someone assigns it. And there's one big problem with capitalism: an underclass with no control, therefore no power, therefore no control... so too much capitalism is bad.
So China and Russia have no underclass? No controlling class? You may wish to try again, because you are again blaming capitalism for corruption. Read what John Adams wrote and get back to us. In fact read what Marx wrote. You are trying to assign blame where it can't be assigned.
Nope. You just started an argument you obviously enjoy having:D.
Only a half truth. Primarily I stated several corrections to your premises. I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject and do enjoy the subjects or would not have such knowledge.
While I'm not surprised based on your other posts here, this is absolutely a false dilemma and appeal to emotion to back your anti-capitalism arguments.
Capitalism does not change a companies accountability for bad products, in fact it increases it naturally without some regulations board. Let me use your appliance example to demonstrate, but the doctor example would be no different.
Company produces a faulty appliance in any economy, what happens? Lets use China and the USA as our examples. In China the producers may face jail time, same as the US 30 years ago. In China, the producers may reward the family of the victim. This also is the same as in the US. That is where the similarities end however. In China if the appliance maker is state run (and they all are) the appliance maker stays in business producing more faulty appliances until they can "fix" the issue. In the USA, and assuming working capitalism, the people would go to a different vendor and buy appliances in addition to seeking legal action.
Capitalism is designed to ensure that a minimum amount of regulations are required for the economy to function. Don't mistake that with removing regulations because it does not.
Capitalism additionally allows for "Standards" to become a commodity. If Standard A fails, a new standard takes it's place. This does not require regulation, only consumer awareness. If ISO 9660 was negligent in some aspect, ISO 9661 steps in to take it's place.
In other words, you are trying to blur or confuse the separation between regulation and standards.
Slashdot Mirror
The Presidential speeches reference many topics and a main topic. To claim that they don't contain what is written and stated because it's not of the topic you believe to be the main topic is illogical and irrational.
Further, to claim these guys didn't know what they were writing or saying is also illogical and irrational. These guys spend a lot of time writing and practicing speeches, they have professionals that help them write them, and there is tremendous study of every statement through Philosophical eyes (rhetoric, symbolic logic, etc..). They know exactly what they are stating and why.
Neither of these guys simply mentioned the conspiracy, they spent large fractions of their speech on them. JFK was a full 1/3rd, Eisenhower was roughly 1/2. Honestly, if you grasp what was just stated you will realize that the only reason to discount the words of these Presidents is to maintain a delusion and prevent cognitive dissonance. Well, that and the majority of people don't know what these guys said, they just took someone's word for it that it was "nothing".
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged i
No as I am a polite person and feel an obligation to interact with someone trying to interact with me. I can ignore computers just fine.
And you are more comfortable with a technology you can't interact with or direct in any way intruding into your eyes and ears? Something is broken, and it's not me.
The Information Commissioner's Office [ico.org.uk] has nothing to do with the GCHQ [wikipedia.org] so why are you mixing them together?
I mentioned that secret courts would prevent your knowledge of collusion, you said you could not find any links of secret courts ( can't find anything on secret medical courts.). I'm not going to research everything for you, sorry. I took a quick stab at what would be the most relevant point in the discussion which is this. You don't know because the Government prevents you from seeing what it's doing.
Asking a question is not an attack, it's a question. Care for me to rephrase it? Here you go: "Can you be so daft as to believe that you can scrutinize what you have no knowledge of?" While it is leading, the only way you would be the victim of an ad hominem is to believe such an irrational possibility.
Sorry, but if you ignore the secret courts that do exist in both the USA and Britain you can't know their rulings. You don't know the evidence they hear, the requests that are made, or the verdicts they put out.
Back to your other point, you do know that Wifi units were put on rubbish bins to track people. Do you really believe the bullshit line put out by the company as to "why" it was being done? I won't ask the leading daft question again, but you should consider it strongly.
The leaks have created diplomatic problems that are likely to prevent effective intervention against the smuggling.
That is still a false dilemma! Did Australia claim that they will no longer prosecute or investigate human trafficking in Australia? (smuggling is a different term for the same thing, don't bother trying to "straw man" the terminology.) Did any other country, including Indonesia, claim that they would no longer investigate or prosecute human trafficking based on the leaks in their own country? The answer to both of those questions is "NO".
Are you going to somehow claim that Australia can no longer patrol their borders and look for barges shipping refuges into Australia because of the leak? Are you going to somehow claim that Indonesia will no longer investigate outbound boats and floating things because of the leaks? I don't think you would be so poor at debate as to make such a claim, but just in case: The analogy would be claiming that the USA will no longer prosecute drug crimes because Columbia drops a joint venture. Or that the USA can no longer investigate without such a venture.
Now you could rightly and rationally claim that the joint investigation mentioned will stop, but how much impact does that have? You don't know! It should have almost no impact, or very low impact, assuming that each home country still works within their own respective jurisdictions (see the drug analogy above).
Compound fallacies are allowed and not uncommon in propaganda war. What the poster stated was exactly a compound fallacy. If they would have said "child sex trafficking" it would have been more obvious, but the human trafficking due to the leak is the same thing (just less obvious).
You have seen all of the chat logs and pertinent data to ensure that there was no entrapment?
Like the person you responded to, I find the concept of sex with children to be revolting. That said, they claim her profile was of a 10 year old. The picture looks a bit younger than 10 in my opinion, but we know from the Treyvon Martin case that they don't always show reality. Perhaps this picture was only somewhere in the profile, and not the main picture. What if the profile picture was a scantily dressed 18 year old? What if the police posing as the kid started offering sex? Offered to pose naked? I believe that a reasonable person seeing the picture they gave in the article would leave the site. With a different picture I find it easy for someone to convince themselves that the listed age was a mistake.
On the surface I agree with them arresting the alleged criminals. That said, I have seen enough to make me distrust what media and certain agencies release as automatically true. There is no evidence given for or against entrapment, so it should not be dismissed without facts.
You should have chosen a term other than "penal code" when discussing minors and sex law....
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
I think the more shocking aspect is how much collusion there is with the espionage, not the espionage itself. It's as if there is no separation between the US, UK, Australia, Italy, and Germany intelligence agencies.
People have been telling about a group trying to create a new world government right under your noses. Not just those "wacky" people like Alex Jones and Gary Allen, but Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower said the same thing. If you look at the collusion here suddenly all those "wacko conspiracy people" are not so wacko.
False dilemma trying to appeal to the emotions. Care to try again without the fallacies?
I get bored in lines and if there are advertising that I am interesded in displayed I will be more entertained. I can do without adds for tampons and justin bieber albums. That is the usefulness to me.
What benefit are some people being denied. The benefit of seeing ads they are not interested in?
Would you not be better served by a worker that you can say "no thanks" to as opposed to a CCTV system that will scan your face and pop up ads as you browse for your butter as it feels fit, not as you see fit? I think you are making my argument for me, though you may not realize it. The "automated" system will not be yours to turn off as you see fit, it turns on as the company sees fit.
Reference please. Where is your proof that the government was involved when it was the government that found it and stopped it.
You did not try very hard.
No, I am claiming that they will be easily caught and stopped if they tried it.
Because everything that the GCHQ does is public information available for you to scrutinize? Even if you knew something you would receive data on request? Come now, you can't be that daft can you?
Useful? No, it's not useful. If you believe that it's useful shame on you for having such short vision. I would not claim it's useless, but rather that it is harmful. It takes away the need for a store to have people doing the same job. It infers that discrimination is fine as long as it's a TV monitor discriminating against you and not a person. (If I'm giving Joe a benefit due to age, I'm denying that same benefit to Harry).
That would mean that the company would know whether or not a specific person paid their taxes which is confidential information and the government would be breaking at least one law by releasing that information. They would be taken to court by the many privacy watchdog organizations.
We see that in the UK this works so well against the GCHQ right? Secret medical courts also have a grand track record right?
That was not a government program and the government stopped it [slashdot.org] when they found out.
You are denying that information was collaborated with the UK Government? You are claiming that as long as nobody gets caught it's okay to continue? Come now.
I'm not saying they're monitoring every time a diplomat takes a shit
Actually they probably monitor when, and what's in the shit. What better way of extorting information than "We have the cure for your dysentery right here in this great cabbage Kimchi we made!
Never put shit above shitty people, they tend to fester in the same pools.
Nowhere did you make that claim previously, you just invented it on the spot trying to defend your fallacious arguments. You can't provide a counter argument, you respond with lies and fallacy.
It would not be bad if your lies were actually logical, but "One goal of society is to minimize unnecessary deaths" is absolute rubbish. Show me one definition of society that makes that claim. You won't find it from Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Aquinas, the Pope, Marx, nobody!
Now I can see why you are "Joining Yet Again", your first account(s) were poor on Karma.
Technically you are correct but this version of facial recognition does not match a name to a face. If there is no database to facilitate that all that can be done is match a face to a demographic.
So the company claims right now. Are the cameras incapable of connecting to a computer system which could make such a match? Does the company do any business with the UK government which may wish to make this connection and has said list of names (in addition to other photo's to match against)? Does it require any physical work visible to you to change the system from no-database to yes-database? Again, these are all viable questions worth asking. We have already seen that certain companies are not against this, nor are the Governments (see UK trash bins tracking peoples mobile devices).
Lots more assumptions. Is the computer ever told what that person's name is? Is that specific information ever stored?
I agree Can you claim your assumptions of "no evil" are better than my assumptions of "potential evil"? You could, but not in a clear and rational sense. I'm only pointing to the questions that we should be asking and why these things are potentially bad.
Where would they get that information if they didn't match a name to a face and have access to my income information?
I agree it's a leap in logic, but it makes sense if you go back to the first paragraph. Could the Government refuse to let the company serve you because you didn't pay your taxes? Again, this is a potential scenario but within the way Networks and technology work.
We also should not ban the practice of giving out candy.
I never claimed we should ban the practice. I stated that certain people are using candy as bait, not as a gift or act of good will. Not recognizing those people for what they are is silly.
I agree with you completely.
Not answering is illegal. It does not matter if it's 1/2, 1/3, or 1/100 requests it is still against the law. Now if NY accepted 2/3ds of a fine as full payment or accepted 2/3rds of your taxes as payment in full maybe they would have some barter room.
Of course we hope that staffing is the issue, but as the guy once said "Never assume". Considering that NYPD had policies like Stop&Frisk, it could very well be that they have people holding offices that just don't give a shit about the law. That lack of regard tends to trickle down to the people they hire.
While funny, the issue is not with a personal password. These are passwords for infrastructure. It's kind of like working for a trucking company and taking the truck keys with you when you quit, except that it sounds like this was a pretty big ass truck (thinking in $$).
Could the company get a new set of passwords? Sure, same as the truck company could get a new set of keys made. But while they were waiting to access their property they lost money at a minimum. Since they were not _your_ trucks or devices you have no right to refuse to give them their keys back.
It's not just in California where housing is insanely priced. Go to Northern Ohio or Detroit and see what life is like there. Perhaps these two areas are the only extremes in the country? I doubt it, I have read similar stories about Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.. Nobody is doing well on average, but technology markets have been doing better than others.
I also agree that numerous segments are holding each other up. That said, 20 years ago you could not have moved the auto industry without collapsing a whole lot of work. That happened, and technology filled in some of those jobs. As wealth disparity and poverty levels in the US indicate, it has not been enough to keep everyone going.
I come from Detroit where Factory jobs if they still exist make less than 15 bucks an hour on average, but nice try. How about Ohio where all of those factory jobs.. oh wait, they have mostly closed and been shipped overseas. I know, the steel workers in factories making.. Fuck not that either!
Look, I get that there are a few decent paying jobs in production. That said, the majority of the factory jobs are no longer in the USA.
We are in for a huge depression. Lets look at where you can currently make a decent living in the USA. Lawyers (for the small percentage that have jobs), Executives (who depend on businesses), Investments, and Technology.
Out of those things, the only one that is productive is technology. We have lost most of our other productivity work to sweat shops overseas and in Mexico. Technology is holding up a whole lot in the economy currently, and no I'm not talking about the NSA. Looking at 1 income households for the most part, but this is true with many 2 income households. People working in technology can afford to purchase houses, a factory worker can no longer do that. A person in technology can afford a new car, a factory worker probably can't. If technology drops, well, nobody will be working in numerous markets. Real estate sales will drop to nothing, which kills all the construction jobs. Auto sales will drop which kills the few remaining automotive jobs in the US (mainly sales and marketing). Investments will collapse as the few that can afford investments already have them and their own people, all of the small investment firms and people will be out of work as well.
Where your thinker is broken is trying to claim that you can have variable amounts of capitalism. You don't! That's like saying we need more Justice. It's illogical, because you either have it or you don't.
Are you really trying to state that we need more regulation? Even handling of economic laws? Justice in prosecuting wrong doing by large businesses? All of those things are viable statements, but none of them change the economic system to "less capitalism" or "more capitalism", we would still be "capitalism".
Or are you arguing that China has a better system? Russia has a better system? You want to move to a "Market Socialism" like China?
You falsely claimed that Russia failed because of capitalism, and it was _never_ using a capitalist economy. It was using State controlled economy just like under Stalin and Lenin. Where they had "social experiments" in capitalism (their terms not mine) if there was success the state took everything over. Those were small isolated bubbles and not the whole economy.
As with Capitalism you can't argue that you need more or less State controlled either. It's one or the other, it can't be part way. If you want to use the experiments as an argument point, think! The state always had control, hence they could pull the plug at will. The Russians figured that game out pretty quickly! You lose!
If I remove the fallacy from your post I see a whole one thought, which is that capitalism is a new concept. This is absolutely false. There have been countless books on the subject starting with Adam Smith who is credited with founding the system of Free Market Capitalism.
More appeal to emotion follows, which I'll ignore and of course you have to close with ad hominem lacking any other method of self perceived intellect or knowledge.
If you don't understand the subject matter you are arguing from ignorance. That is not a fallacy, that is a fact that you seem to find unimportant. Kind of like a person trying to argue that geometry is bad without understanding the work of Pythagoras. I wash my hands of your ignorant rantings against something you have no understanding of.
That is a sensationalistic quote. There is a huge gap between being identified as "Joe Klovance" and "middle aged white male".
Bullshit! Facial recognition is facial recognition. It's not looking for oval shapes, it's searching for faces. Making a claim like "We don't plan to look to see if it's really Joe" or "we only want to estimate Joe's demographic" does not change what "FACIAL RECOGNITION" is or does.
This is no different than a clerk waling up to people in different demographics and pointing out different sales that may interest them. That it is done by computer rather than a person is irrelevant.
More bullshit! The clerk can only see and refer to a single customer at a time, and will deal with so many people that they can't remember them all beyond the duration of a few days. The computer has indefinite memory and can deal with numerous people simultaneously.
The who what and where of how the data is used is the concern. "We won't use it in a negative way" is the same thing as "Joe makes 50.00 per hour, so gets a multiplier on purchases", or "Joe pissed off the clerk and we had something stolen that day, lets harass Joe". They are all hypothetical situations, any of those _could_ be valid.
When you continually see that people offer candy to kids to get them into the van, you should stop trusting that all these people are doing is handing out candy.
I think you need to look up the concept of greed since it's not a singular thing like "red". Greed would lead to numerous things such as hoarding, harming others for personal gain, etc... Nitpicking a definition does not change a thing, it makes you look silly.
Your ad hoc dialogue trying to compare an economy to a diet is not rational. You still ignore the premises that I gave. 1. Corruption is the root of the problem, not Capitalism. 2. A function of Government is supposed to regulate and prevent power vacuums.
Corruption will always be there. I never said that capitalism was the problem. You're obviously a religious capitalist and have to construct and tear down this straw man at every opportunity in the name of the Invisible Hand.
Here you are claiming that we should accept corruption in order to remove it from the dialogue. That is a ludicrous claim you realize. Corruption in capitalism leads to unfair laws and unfair treatment. In other systems that corruption is built in and leads to unfair laws and unfair treatment. In both cases corruption is the problem, not the economic system being leveraged. You don't deny the corruption in any system, you simply say "they are all corrupt so fuck it" which does not take it away, it stalls the inevitable cleaning up of the corruption.
You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system!
We're talking about the USSR, not communism. "The USSR was communist therefore it wasn't state capitalist," is not an argument.
You stated that "Leninism degenerated into capitalism". You were not talking about the USSR, and now you deny your own words! I smell a strong delusional force!
They can't, unless someone assigns it. And there's one big problem with capitalism: an underclass with no control, therefore no power, therefore no control... so too much capitalism is bad.
So China and Russia have no underclass? No controlling class? You may wish to try again, because you are again blaming capitalism for corruption. Read what John Adams wrote and get back to us. In fact read what Marx wrote. You are trying to assign blame where it can't be assigned.
Nope. You just started an argument you obviously enjoy having :D.
Only a half truth. Primarily I stated several corrections to your premises. I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject and do enjoy the subjects or would not have such knowledge.
While I'm not surprised based on your other posts here, this is absolutely a false dilemma and appeal to emotion to back your anti-capitalism arguments.
Capitalism does not change a companies accountability for bad products, in fact it increases it naturally without some regulations board. Let me use your appliance example to demonstrate, but the doctor example would be no different.
Company produces a faulty appliance in any economy, what happens? Lets use China and the USA as our examples. In China the producers may face jail time, same as the US 30 years ago. In China, the producers may reward the family of the victim. This also is the same as in the US. That is where the similarities end however. In China if the appliance maker is state run (and they all are) the appliance maker stays in business producing more faulty appliances until they can "fix" the issue. In the USA, and assuming working capitalism, the people would go to a different vendor and buy appliances in addition to seeking legal action.
Capitalism is designed to ensure that a minimum amount of regulations are required for the economy to function. Don't mistake that with removing regulations because it does not.
Capitalism additionally allows for "Standards" to become a commodity. If Standard A fails, a new standard takes it's place. This does not require regulation, only consumer awareness. If ISO 9660 was negligent in some aspect, ISO 9661 steps in to take it's place.
In other words, you are trying to blur or confuse the separation between regulation and standards.