yes, but how many of said "rich" business people also benefit from the largesse of the government, but don't want to have that called "welfare"? That could be government contracts, subsidies, or the government picking up costs for those businesses... Obvious conditions are the government eating the cost to clean up after businesses have long gone out of business, storing their hazardous wastes for them, etc.
so then Zeta goes a bit underground, but slowly works their way into the taxing and collecting business for the government. Then that process gets corrupted, as the funds that go in don't always equal the amount that actually ends up in the government's coffers. Or, now, the government starts running a sovereign drug exporting business. Easy for the US to shake its fists at the cartels. Much harder to do if Mexico's government gets severely co-opted due to "legalization".
Sort of like Israel's espionage activities on their so-called "friends", like the US.
but that could come from anyone who has worked in an environment for very long where sticking too far up above the board is going to get you (and probably some of those around you) hammered down, and hard (in the military, it's called "non-judicial punishment" or Article 15). This goes most for enlisteds, O1-O3, or warrant officers, at least with regards to the US military, especially if they never were in a significant leadership position. It's just part of the culture. As far as the "yes man" nature, if they've been the military for any significant amount of time, they're strongly ingrained with no matter how bullshit the request is, that The Man doesn't care about excuses, only solutions...oops, my bad...results. So it's "yessir, yessir, three bags full!" even if we know the bags are gonna be full of cow shit. Another thing that is hammered into most military people is "respect the chain of authority". You tell your boss the problem, and that's it (assuming it's not redirected back to you as a personal problem for you to fix). If it gets swept under the carpet by higher ups, so be it. It's a real bad thing to "jump the chain" or even go outside of the chain of authority. Even if you do and are ultimately vindicated, the culture will remember it and it will not bode well for your long-term career.
But from a cognition standpoint, those little bits of motion attract our attention, and make us go "Hmm...I wonder...". Sure, many of us in this particular audience realize the structure sometimes needing a few moments to stabilize is a consequence of the dynamic behavior of the physics engine, but we're not the rest of everyone else who gets sucked into it. That was the point of the article.
And it is some or all of those little other things, intended to do so by the developers or not, that suck more of us in to this version of a game archetype compared to other versions.
Also, read up on the design of casinos... there's a reason why they all basically look, feel, smell and sound alike. Or grocery or department store layouts...
exactly, because all it takes is someone clever to come along and say, "these interstate grazing rights, well, by implication they mean that can you and you can't anything about it!", essentially throwing the proverbial "fire!" into the crowded meme-space theater.
Politics: because no one is as stupid as all of us (cept the ones we didn't vote for!).
Collectively, we are rather stupid and reactive. And, I socially we in the US are not very homogenous, no matter how you slice up the socio-economic demographics.
We are all sort of afflicted by an ingrained us-vs-them pattern in our brains, whether we're on top or on the bottom. And there are too many social hot-buttons that have been culturally ingrained in many of us that are too easy for people to whack on. And we're not very introspective, as it's simply easier to project our individual/group/tribal/whatever problems on Those Others. It's the Republicans' fault! It's the Democrats' fault! It's the wetbacks' fault!...it's the lazy whiskey-tangos' fault!. It's...it's...!!!!!!!!
Add that a curious reaction when we perceive someone else, especially someone "below us", getting a "better deal" than we might be getting, and really going over the top with the reactions to it. Like the well-off soccer mom getting bent out of shape because it's NOT FAIR! that my husband works his ass off and I have to pay for my latte, yet Lazy Susan over there, on welfare, can buy hers with her food stamps! (and not once considering that she's wearing threadbare clothes, probably took the bus to the store, is going home to a cupboard, maybe, filled with not a lot, trying to squeeze two pennies together into a dime on a daily basis)...and, well, it's "her fault anyways, why should I have to pay for her stupid decisions"...
How do you balance these polarities with the same "right to vote"?
Re:Just seems like a well thought out list
on
The RMS Tour Rider
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Maybe not so bad for the poor sap (e.g., someone's kid), who promptly ate them as they picked them out.
That may be, but not even all the pigs in the barnyard are equal. The big corps that the OWS people are worried about are the proverbial 700 lb boars and sows that rule the feed trough and shit wherever they damn well please.
Management problem. The higher up management goes, the more it is concerned with "shareholders" (often times, this does include themselves), and the employee base is just dog crap stuck to their shoes that they can't quite get off.
You do know that the government can dragnet through corporate data easily enough w/o warrant or order, though, right? And that this aggregated, personalized data will be made available to other companies, like...oh...insurance companies. Your spending history will affect your rates with them, much like your credit history already can do...
One of these days, it will become a level of fraud for you to claim a non-smoker discount on your health insurance but the insurance company, through your spending data, discovers you have a history of buying tobacco products, and assumes that you're the one it all has been bought for and consumed by... It won't be simple enough to insure you at a higher rate or riskier bucket...
"Poke several holes in the wrapper. Microwave on high for 4-6 minutes, rotate by 1/4 turn, microwave for another 2-3 minutes. Careful, package will be hot. Then, peel away the wrapper, and enjoy the succulent goodness"
Slight edit: the transition from Network databases (by way of Date & Codd) wouldn't have happened. But SQL's descendents were built on IBM mainframes... not sure they were so dependent on C or LISP at the time...
And yet, it doesn't take too much research to find out country-wide or region-wide recessions, be they purely economic in nature or just simply result of externalities (potato famine, tulip fetish, etc) that result in economic chaos for some time...
No, biggest risk with heavily ag-based economies back then was that they were at the whim or mercy of Mother Nature. No long-term storage methods for perishables (milk, dairy, produce, etc). Droughts. Floods. Pestilence (locusts...). Diseases (just ask the Irish about that)... or conditions that affected the labor pool, although to be honest, they were likely to take out the consumer pool proportionately as well. It really wasn't lack of materials or machinery to optimize their operations, though (hard to count lack of machinery at a given time as a fair factor when the machinery hadn't been invented yet...).
(but, isn't our economy ultimately ag-based anyways? Ultimately, we consumers can't buy our crappy stuff if we don't have crappy food to eat in the first place so we can be consumers...)
I guess we're f'd when basic food stuffs become a luxury item.
On the flip side, we're partially services-oriented economically because of said improvements in materials and machinery (aka automation) as well. A farmer driving a 9400-series John Deere tractor can plow hundreds of acres in a day, compared to the few acres per day done by one farmer pulling a period John Deere single-board plow behind a horse (and think how much the Deere/McCormack plows improved farm yields after they were invented...). A 9800-series combine driven by one driver can thresh and harvest far more wheat in a day compared to the late 1800's... (cut the wheat, bundle it into shocks, take the shocks to the thresher...).
And to add, "his" fortune is probably in his wife's control, per the terms in Steve's will. As such, as much as we'd all like to have something to prattle on about here and elsewhere, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Nor does prattling on about whether he should have gotten surgery sooner than he did or not. It's his & his family's matter to deal with, not yours or mine. He made his choices, the same we all want to be able to do for ourselves without having a bunch of I-know-better-than-you(but have nothing better to do with my life)'s trying to tell them what to do.
But a shareholder like Carl Icahn (note, he hasn't done this...) could come in, buy enough shares, enough to put his own crew on the board, perhaps hire a new president, and do just that, all in the name of "increasing shareholder value", in this case, sucking idle cash out of the company. Oh, wait... that DID happen in the 80's with leveraged buyouts, etc.
Hmm... so they can still buy their Wal-Mart, Dollar Store and Target crap? So they can still know when blizzards or thunderstorms or tornadoes are about to ruin their days? So that they can export the grains they grow there easily to asia?
Slashdot Mirror
yes, but how many of said "rich" business people also benefit from the largesse of the government, but don't want to have that called "welfare"? That could be government contracts, subsidies, or the government picking up costs for those businesses... Obvious conditions are the government eating the cost to clean up after businesses have long gone out of business, storing their hazardous wastes for them, etc.
so then Zeta goes a bit underground, but slowly works their way into the taxing and collecting business for the government. Then that process gets corrupted, as the funds that go in don't always equal the amount that actually ends up in the government's coffers. Or, now, the government starts running a sovereign drug exporting business. Easy for the US to shake its fists at the cartels. Much harder to do if Mexico's government gets severely co-opted due to "legalization".
Sort of like Israel's espionage activities on their so-called "friends", like the US.
Try NetTrek... you can only reach Admiral status because, well, you can consistently blow up star bases with your puny scout.
if you want to just blow stuff up, there's always NetTrek.
Not fun to play, though, if you have a laggy connection.
The US Air Force: closest thing to being in the military!
but that could come from anyone who has worked in an environment for very long where sticking too far up above the board is going to get you (and probably some of those around you) hammered down, and hard (in the military, it's called "non-judicial punishment" or Article 15). This goes most for enlisteds, O1-O3, or warrant officers, at least with regards to the US military, especially if they never were in a significant leadership position. It's just part of the culture.
As far as the "yes man" nature, if they've been the military for any significant amount of time, they're strongly ingrained with no matter how bullshit the request is, that The Man doesn't care about excuses, only solutions...oops, my bad...results. So it's "yessir, yessir, three bags full!" even if we know the bags are gonna be full of cow shit.
Another thing that is hammered into most military people is "respect the chain of authority". You tell your boss the problem, and that's it (assuming it's not redirected back to you as a personal problem for you to fix). If it gets swept under the carpet by higher ups, so be it.
It's a real bad thing to "jump the chain" or even go outside of the chain of authority. Even if you do and are ultimately vindicated, the culture will remember it and it will not bode well for your long-term career.
But from a cognition standpoint, those little bits of motion attract our attention, and make us go "Hmm...I wonder...". Sure, many of us in this particular audience realize the structure sometimes needing a few moments to stabilize is a consequence of the dynamic behavior of the physics engine, but we're not the rest of everyone else who gets sucked into it. That was the point of the article.
And it is some or all of those little other things, intended to do so by the developers or not, that suck more of us in to this version of a game archetype compared to other versions.
Also, read up on the design of casinos... there's a reason why they all basically look, feel, smell and sound alike. Or grocery or department store layouts...
exactly, because all it takes is someone clever to come along and say, "these interstate grazing rights, well, by implication they mean that can you and you can't anything about it!", essentially throwing the proverbial "fire!" into the crowded meme-space theater.
(to paraphrase from a Despair.com poster...)
Politics: because no one is as stupid as all of us (cept the ones we didn't vote for!).
Collectively, we are rather stupid and reactive. And, I socially we in the US are not very homogenous, no matter how you slice up the socio-economic demographics.
We are all sort of afflicted by an ingrained us-vs-them pattern in our brains, whether we're on top or on the bottom. And there are too many social hot-buttons that have been culturally ingrained in many of us that are too easy for people to whack on. And we're not very introspective, as it's simply easier to project our individual/group/tribal/whatever problems on Those Others. It's the Republicans' fault! It's the Democrats' fault! It's the wetbacks' fault!...it's the lazy whiskey-tangos' fault!. It's...it's...!!!!!!!!
Add that a curious reaction when we perceive someone else, especially someone "below us", getting a "better deal" than we might be getting, and really going over the top with the reactions to it. Like the well-off soccer mom getting bent out of shape because it's NOT FAIR! that my husband works his ass off and I have to pay for my latte, yet Lazy Susan over there, on welfare, can buy hers with her food stamps! (and not once considering that she's wearing threadbare clothes, probably took the bus to the store, is going home to a cupboard, maybe, filled with not a lot, trying to squeeze two pennies together into a dime on a daily basis)...and, well, it's "her fault anyways, why should I have to pay for her stupid decisions"...
How do you balance these polarities with the same "right to vote"?
Maybe not so bad for the poor sap (e.g., someone's kid), who promptly ate them as they picked them out.
And yet Website developers will bend over backwards to make their websites work with users still using IE6 (if it's at 1.5% or so).
That may be, but not even all the pigs in the barnyard are equal. The big corps that the OWS people are worried about are the proverbial 700 lb boars and sows that rule the feed trough and shit wherever they damn well please.
You're a funny guy!
DC-3 beautiful?
Management problem. The higher up management goes, the more it is concerned with "shareholders" (often times, this does include themselves), and the employee base is just dog crap stuck to their shoes that they can't quite get off.
then prepaid visa, then.
You do know that the government can dragnet through corporate data easily enough w/o warrant or order, though, right? And that this aggregated, personalized data will be made available to other companies, like...oh...insurance companies. Your spending history will affect your rates with them, much like your credit history already can do...
One of these days, it will become a level of fraud for you to claim a non-smoker discount on your health insurance but the insurance company, through your spending data, discovers you have a history of buying tobacco products, and assumes that you're the one it all has been bought for and consumed by... It won't be simple enough to insure you at a higher rate or riskier bucket...
Let me guess...
"Poke several holes in the wrapper. Microwave on high for 4-6 minutes, rotate by 1/4 turn, microwave for another 2-3 minutes. Careful, package will be hot. Then, peel away the wrapper, and enjoy the succulent goodness"
Slight edit: the transition from Network databases (by way of Date & Codd) wouldn't have happened. But SQL's descendents were built on IBM mainframes... not sure they were so dependent on C or LISP at the time...
And yet, it doesn't take too much research to find out country-wide or region-wide recessions, be they purely economic in nature or just simply result of externalities (potato famine, tulip fetish, etc) that result in economic chaos for some time...
No, biggest risk with heavily ag-based economies back then was that they were at the whim or mercy of Mother Nature. No long-term storage methods for perishables (milk, dairy, produce, etc). Droughts. Floods. Pestilence (locusts...). Diseases (just ask the Irish about that)... or conditions that affected the labor pool, although to be honest, they were likely to take out the consumer pool proportionately as well. It really wasn't lack of materials or machinery to optimize their operations, though (hard to count lack of machinery at a given time as a fair factor when the machinery hadn't been invented yet...).
(but, isn't our economy ultimately ag-based anyways? Ultimately, we consumers can't buy our crappy stuff if we don't have crappy food to eat in the first place so we can be consumers...)
I guess we're f'd when basic food stuffs become a luxury item.
On the flip side, we're partially services-oriented economically because of said improvements in materials and machinery (aka automation) as well. A farmer driving a 9400-series John Deere tractor can plow hundreds of acres in a day, compared to the few acres per day done by one farmer pulling a period John Deere single-board plow behind a horse (and think how much the Deere/McCormack plows improved farm yields after they were invented...). A 9800-series combine driven by one driver can thresh and harvest far more wheat in a day compared to the late 1800's... (cut the wheat, bundle it into shocks, take the shocks to the thresher...).
or AIG? Hmm... Is the US going to get back anything close to 1:1 what it gave to AIG to keep it afloat?
Don Quixote called, and he wants his windmills back.
And to add, "his" fortune is probably in his wife's control, per the terms in Steve's will. As such, as much as we'd all like to have something to prattle on about here and elsewhere, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Nor does prattling on about whether he should have gotten surgery sooner than he did or not. It's his & his family's matter to deal with, not yours or mine. He made his choices, the same we all want to be able to do for ourselves without having a bunch of I-know-better-than-you(but have nothing better to do with my life)'s trying to tell them what to do.
Boo (boo.codehaus.org) lets you work this way... It's a Python-esque, type-safe scripting language for .Net...
Hmm... anyone with an electric clothes dryer in the US or Canada probably already has at least one 240V 40 or 50 amp circuit in their house...
But a shareholder like Carl Icahn (note, he hasn't done this...) could come in, buy enough shares, enough to put his own crew on the board, perhaps hire a new president, and do just that, all in the name of "increasing shareholder value", in this case, sucking idle cash out of the company. Oh, wait... that DID happen in the 80's with leveraged buyouts, etc.
Hmm... so they can still buy their Wal-Mart, Dollar Store and Target crap? So they can still know when blizzards or thunderstorms or tornadoes are about to ruin their days? So that they can export the grains they grow there easily to asia?