And how will you recoup the costs of making that album? Say you have 50 studio orchestra musicians, hald a dozen engineers, and all sorts of post-production people working on something that you cannot take on the road - since it's not that sort of performance (or the various performers cannot be gathered for that sort of activity). The work of doing the recording is done specifically because there will be people willing to pay for their copy of that work. Are you saying that they should be paid the day they do all that work, and only that day? No? Then getting paid for selling copies of it afterwards is the only way that such work can be done, and having the copyright to the work protected is the only way to keep it from getting ripped off.
Some artistic work can't be handled the way a bar band collects their take of the cover charges from the door. Know anyone who works for years at a time on a single film? You can't get all the actors together to perform that in front of an audience ever time they want to afford groceries, or invest in making even better films later.
Take the recent issue with mastercard and the intrusion into their customer DB. Thousands of credit card number were released. To say that it doesn't happen any more, is to, at best, be a bit naive.
I don't meant to suggest it isn't happening, or isn't a target. But most of that stuff is insider badness, not 133t h@xx0rs coming in from the outside while on Jolt buzz. The malware is where all the action is - because that's how you plant keyloggers, etc., and GET inside access if you don't have an inside man. But, for now at least, the botnets are the real heavy artillary - and then also lead to spaminizing, which can deploy tools for id theft, etc. Malware is a bigger deal than ultra-crafty sneak-into-the-db-like-in-the-movies stuff I think, but YMMV.
4500 Ford car plant workers who wont be getting paid either for work they did 50 years ago
Actually, one of the main reasons that Ford (and GM, etc) are in such dire straights these days is because of the HUGE financial burden of paying large sums of money to people who have not worked for them for decades. Both as pensions, and (apparently, even more expensive) health care. One long-ago retired assembly line worker, in the last throws of lung cancer (just as an example) can cost Ford (and its currently working employees) hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course, they made that promise to the unions, so they deserve what they get... but a lot of people would say that it is exactly like getting paid for work you did a long time ago.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that they can get me access to a given business's clients database in the next 48 hours ? Didn't think so. So what are the gangs getting out of this ? Are they getting on a hype bandwagon ?
Getting access to a company's database is so 1990's. These days, you need smart computer science types to design better malware to create botnets so that you can practice good old fashioned extortion against Costa Rican casino web sites. Simple as that.
it's a better job offer than the other offers most kids are going to get, and it appeals to their interests... why are people surprised?
Um... for the same reason people might be surprised if non-crazy students who spend their years in college studying chemistry would look for "sponsorship" from a group that tells them they'll be building suitcase bombs for terrorists? Or an engineering/architecture student that's told they'll get a free ride through college as along as they agree to help break into banks once they graduate? This isn't any different.
I don't know, either. And since you didn't say how many are, neither do you. But it only takes one to cost a company millions of dollars, or run them right out of business entirely. I have clients that rely utterly on their customers' sense that they handle their data securely and that the team of people who touch that data are trustworthy. One slip could ruin those customers, cost people their jobs, homes... that's a lot more expensive than a background check, or the salary you have to pay someone who can easily pass one.
If you look at where firms lose the most money, and the risk factors, it's the lack of realistic background checks and clawback contracts for CEOs and CFOs that puts a company at risk, then the accounting staff, then sales and shipping staff, and way down you have IT staff.
Um... except the roque IT guy can do things to ruin the CEO's reputation, hose up teh CFO's reporting engine and wreck the balance sheets, leave the accounting team twiddling their fingers (or, unwittingly lying to the accountants), cause the sales people's communications to behave in a way that torpedos sales or relays vital marketing plans to competitors, and have the shipping people direct goods to the wrong addresses or right into oblivion.
The smaller the operation, the more vital the single guy's background is, since there are more solo opportunities to cause grief.
You were proven wrong about "social equality" and are now trying to change the subject.
Nope! Not proven wrong, merely pointing out that "social equity" is a meaningless concept from the start. Um, unless you think that you and I should make exactly the same living regardless of what we each choose to do with our time, or how wisely we choose to spend out money (and time).
Slashdot gets money from advertisements regardless of whether some people reach into their pockets and buy books through a B & N link.
No, slashdot gets money from advertisements only if those advertisements perform for the people running the ads. How many times have you clicked those ads and then followed up by doing some business with one of the advertisers? Affiliate links to places like B&N or other vendors are just part of the wider revenue-generating efforts, and all of the techniques have good days and bad. Unless you're really complaining about the basic pursuit of raising enough money to run the site, pay the people who make it go, and keep it alive between slow periods, what are you complaining about?
Income inequality is greater in the USA than in other countries with comparable standards of living
I'm not wrong, because we're talking about two different things. Who cares if rich people are still rich, or more rich? I'm talking about whether poor people are still poor, using the same standards that the comment referred to (comparing to 50 years ago). My point is that "poor" people are living far, far better than they were 50 years ago, have more opportunities than ever before, and that any inability of them to take advantage of those opportunities is far more cultural than it is some result of a person with a big investment portfolio having seen his assets grow along with the economy for the last 5 decades.
All you're showing me is that the rich people in the US have been particularly successful, and that though we have a hugely progressive tax system that has them paying the lion's share of the taxes, it's just not as punitive as it is in some other countries. The gap is meaningless. Talk about the quality of life compared to the 50 years ago that this thread is actually talking about. Really talk about it, and be sure to include transporation, medicine, food quality, communications, life expectency, literacy, etc. That it's better doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's nothing like it was 50 years ago, to say nothing of 500 years ago.
If they wanted to show some real bias, they would have called them dead babies.
No, they would have called them "possible future Einsteins and Ghandis." Although I always get a laugh out of that one since they avoid the "possible future Idi Amins and Stalins," too. Look, mah, no Godwin!
Which means nothing. Who cares what the relative distribution is if the "poor" people are living substantially better than ever before, and have more opportunities than ever before? Charting the upward movement in that standard of living is the meaningful pursuit. Carping about how a really rich person is still (or more) really rich is nothing but class baiting. Compare a "poor" resident of Kentucky today with his counterpart from 50 years ago, and you've got something to look at.
Social equity for me means that everyone who works should be able to afford to buy a house.
Really? How many bedrooms? In what neighborhood? Have you tackled the issue of everyone wanting perfect weather in their neighborhood, or will you give my money to people who live someplace where they have one more ice storm per year than where I live, but you'll give someone else's money to ME if that other person lives somewhere that grows slightly nicer grass than my climate does?
If we all should have the same standard of living, how do you differentiate between the person that has two children and the person who wants the same amount of per-capita living space for all 8 of their children? Should people's decisions not have any bearing on their quality of life when it comes to things like home ownership? If there should be some accountability, then what about accountability for choosing to study at school instead of party, or put off buying expensive rims for your old car, or work an extra few hours a week when you're young and healthy... all things that tend to already differentiate the homeowners from the non-homeowners.
You say that everyone who works should have a house. But what if I work harder? What if you show up and work, but do so unimaginatively, or without any discipline, or choose to work someplace that doesn't do anything of enough value to pay you enough to buy a house?
It means that athletes are not paid enormous sums of money when the job of a fireman, policeman or teacher is infinitely more important.
Well, that's easy. Don't pay athletes, and elect people to your city or county government that are willing to raise taxes to pay their fire and police people more money. Of course, you'll also have to convince millions of other people that the entertainment they get from watching very talented athletes isn't really as fun as they think it is, and they'll be much more able to afford those higher taxes if they'd just stop subscribing to ESPN.
More people can afford to buy tghese items than 30 years ago simply because they are less expensive--not because they are making more money today (with inflation taken in to account).
You're clueless. If people weren't making any more real money (taking inflation into account), then a family that previously could only afford rent, food, and clothing would still only be able to afford rent, food, and clothing. The fact that they can afford that (and that a higher percentage of them are also owning their homes) AND they can afford more entertainment material and technology means that you're wrong. A $1000 TV is still using up 2% of a household's net take-home of $50k/year. $1000 buys a lot of food, fuel, or clothing. A typical cell phone bill could buy a lot of food each month, to say nothing of a cable subscription. 50 years ago, these weren't even options. To have them available is an indication of an increased standard of living, across the board. Doesn't mean you have to buy them - but since you're comparing things to a few decades ago, you need to take into account that you're talking about things that are new on the scene. 40 years ago, you spent $0.50 to take in a movie, perhaps once a week. Now people sit in front of 200 cable channels for 30+ hours a week.
That's exactly my point. They aren't now. But at one point they were. Just like decent dentistry, or refridgeration. That is exactly how you illustrate that it isn't just the "rich" getting richer.
What I would be interested in is the change of wealth distribution over a long period of human history.
But that's where such conversations always go wrong. The pie isn't always the same size - it grows through production. We aren't just changing the way the economic pie is distributed, we're producing more pie. And, as you alluded to, we're also putting things like Penicillan into the mouths of dying babies for less than a hamburger costs - and someone from 500 years ago would have considered themselves rich indeed if they could live through an otherwise fatal infection for the cost of a meal.
Try comparing with 50 years ago instead of 500. Then we have not made progress, but taken many step backwards in social equality.
Really? By what measure? More people own their own homes. Unemployment is lower. Even lower income families have things that would have been considered utter luxuries 50 years ago (multiple televisions, cell phones, cable, cheap antibiotics, cheap fresh food of every imaginable kind, etc). What does "social equity" mean to you - that someone who is successful should not have a flatscreen TV until everyone does? Or that incredibly wealthy pro basketball players shouldn't be allowed to spend their cash until everyone can spend the same amount of cash?
Oh, save it. You know perfectly well that you don't have to stand there in the middle of a bunch of drunken or violent asses that are intent on damage. If your radar is so bad that you can't tell that a large portion of the people immediately surrounding you are about to cause some real trouble, then you need to get out more. And if it's really only a couple of people, then you have to ask yourself why you and the other 99% who aren't looking for trouble can't either personally deal with the guy who's fumbling with his lighter and a bottle with a rag in it, or walk over to the nearest cop and tell them who it is that's trying to get things started, chaos-wise.
Using these tools against people BEFORE they have broken the law is wrong.
You're confusing the use of a crowd control device before the crowd does some stupid crap with using them as the crowd is doing stupid crap. Freedom of assembly and speech aren't damaged at all if 500 drunk frat boys dancing around a bonfire made up of a flaming police car and all of the books they just stole from the storefront they just trashed are dispersed by some non-lethal mechanism. You could march 100 police officers in, but you risk physical harm if they have to physically handle people to get them to leave, and you can't just call up 100 police officers in some mid-sized college town after you realize that idiots are pouring gasoline on utility poles and lighting them.
But if you position those officers right there, in advance, then you get accused of being Nazis. So, you can't win, if it's your job to keep the main street next door to Enormous State University intact until the next business day after a particularly exciting basketball game. So... things get out of hand, and a small number of crowd control officers could fire teargas cannisters (and risk hitting people in the head, catching clothes on fire, or killing asthmatics), or perhaps they could use some newer technlogy that doesn't involve high speed projectiles, incindiary devices, etc. That's what's being talked about here.
Implying that the only way to save time, injuries, thin municipal budgets, etc., is to use such devices in advance is nonsense. The whole idea is to give the law enforcement people responding to such mayhem something new, safer, and more effective with which to get things back to civilized without having to have the paramilitary-looking guys (who wear that stuff so they don't get cut up with broken glass, etc) there in the first place. And that reduces tensions. And if the twits that like to smash store windows, burn cars, and block streets understand that something passingly unpleasant is one of the tools in the police toolbox, they might even think twice about showing up with that molotov cocktail (or making one out of rum) in the first place. And, thus no mayhem, and thus no need to act in response. Good for everyone involved.
And how you define "expession." Having your home or business burned to the ground doesn't feel very much like someone was thoughtfully expressing something. Having your car dealership torched because someone thinks your products get 5mpg too little, or your medical lab trashed because people (wearing leather shoes!) think you're mean to rats, or your clinic bombed because you're mean to your own uterus - that stuff isn't "expression" except in the most craven sense of that word.
People who spend a month in chat rooms planning to block roads or disrupt someone else's use of a legitimate marching permit, etc., can't really complain with law enforcement ruins their day. In fact, they should be happy that they won't have to worry about a teargas cannister catching their giant puppet head, and then their hair, on fire as they concern themselves with shutting down a latte vendor.
Call it whatever you want. But actions are actions, and in a civil society - especiallly in a dense urban area - some crap has to be handled quickly before it spirals out of control. See L.A. after the Rodney King verdict, or any number of college towns after some vital, drop-dead-important freakin' football game. A lot of towns end up having to borrow a load of cash or raise taxes to buy fresh city vehicles, re-string power lines, and replace things like park benches because people have been witlessly "expressing" themselves.
Re:Heroes in their own minds
on
Open Source Spying
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Do you wonder why they are shooting at you in Iraq
You use the word "they" as if "the Iraqi people" are doing the shooting. Most of the people being shot by Iraqi people are other Iraqi people - but that's only a very small part of the carnage. Just like under Saddam - except that then, it was the minority Sunnis as brutally ruled by a family from Tikrit, killing people by the tens of thousands, for decades on end. Now you've got small sectarian cells fueled by cash and weapons from Iran and Syria, with the local Al Queda operator pouring gasoline on the fire. The average Iraqi is hardly rising up against the troops that are there training local forces, building infrastructure, and protecting the elected government as best they can from assasination attempts by foreign insurgents or would-be theocratic idiots that proclaim democracy to be un-Islamic.
anyone have really cared if richard reid had a bit of a smoke?
Ah! See, I didn't know that all he was trying to do, while lighting fuses going into the explosives in his shoes, was just to "have a smoke." Yes, your credibility is solid, solid, solid.
Re:Heroes in their own minds
on
Open Source Spying
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Just like every person shot or bombed in Iraq is an 'insurgent' or 'terrorist' because the US has magic 'insurgent seeking munitions'.
Do you have any idea how different that conflict would look if we did act like the insurgents and exhibit no concern over who got killed on the sidelines? If we know there's an Acme IED Factory franchise operating out of the basement of a Baghdad apartment building, we can either risk the lives of our own people, and try to surgically deal with it, or we can just drop some big ol' bombs on the neighborhood and totally level the entire place. Guess which happens the most often. That's how our team gets shot up on raids - by choosing not to level whole neighborhoods the easy way. And of course, the guy with the backpack full of Iraninan RPGs doesn't just go into the place with the "Insurgent Hotel" sign over the door - he operates out of the local civilian population specifically as a form of cover, knowing we don't just hose down entire city blocks to kill one guy. How many people who've been there, on the ground, hunting these clowns, have ever sat down with and had a beer? Ah, I see.
And sure there are really only 19 people on those rendition flights, the US just flew them around a lot for the ride.
Well, since you're an expert on who works those flights, on the intel that's gathered in advance of capturing people like KSM or his cronies, on the places where these people are kept, on the tactics that are used to weed out the ones that have the financial, logistical, and tactical connections to the people pulling the strategic strings - do tell! Since you're quick to say what it's not, explain what it is, and cite your sources.
There is no truth whatsoever to the Republicans' made up threats.
Well, you're just factually incorrect (and, of course, you know you are). Ever had dinner with someone who spent months in the hospital after having pieces of flaming terrorist-piloted aircraft blow through her office and nearly kill her? Or are you more of the "it never happened" camp? I'm comfortable, having talked to eye witnesses, that it did. That was five years ago. Since then, fellow humans in places like Madrid or London would probably have no trouble convincing you that the threat from people deliberately planning, and executing, murderous attacks is not "made up," however comforting it must be to you to think that's the case. The cowardice you're accusing me of exhibiting is - to cite a little PSY101 - pretty much you projecting your own head-in-the-sand about this. If this stuff is all made up, would you advocate no security at boarding gates? No security around nuclear facilities? You can't have it both ways.
camps designed for the purpose of torture and murder of *innocent* peopl are death camps period
Ah, now I see. You're making an assertion like that (because who can argue that a camp designed to murder people isn't a death camp?), but carefully dodging the responsibility of explaining who sat around a table thinking "We need to murder some innocent people... let's design elaborate camps, fly people around the world, staff them with all sorts of expensive personnel and support facilities, so that we can murder us some innocent people! We have all of these highly trained special forces out there, who will hunt down and capture these innocent people, and then drag them all the way back to a camp where we'll kill them, since those special forces guys..." what? They aren't good enough with a weapon to kill the innocent people where they find them? Do you have any idea how absurd your point is? Your B Movie villain nonsense doesn't make any more sense in real life than it would in a cheesy movie.
You want a cheesy real life villain? Try guys like Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Sang like a bird and gave up much of his operation and contacts immediately after being captured. And, guess what! Not murdered. Man, we just can't run an effective death camp, I guess.
Move to Saudi Arabia. They're your sort of people there
Pleaes, just keep saying things like that. It saves me so much typing.
Slashdot Mirror
You want money, you do some work. Record an album
And how will you recoup the costs of making that album? Say you have 50 studio orchestra musicians, hald a dozen engineers, and all sorts of post-production people working on something that you cannot take on the road - since it's not that sort of performance (or the various performers cannot be gathered for that sort of activity). The work of doing the recording is done specifically because there will be people willing to pay for their copy of that work. Are you saying that they should be paid the day they do all that work, and only that day? No? Then getting paid for selling copies of it afterwards is the only way that such work can be done, and having the copyright to the work protected is the only way to keep it from getting ripped off.
Some artistic work can't be handled the way a bar band collects their take of the cover charges from the door. Know anyone who works for years at a time on a single film? You can't get all the actors together to perform that in front of an audience ever time they want to afford groceries, or invest in making even better films later.
Take the recent issue with mastercard and the intrusion into their customer DB. Thousands of credit card number were released. To say that it doesn't happen any more, is to, at best, be a bit naive.
I don't meant to suggest it isn't happening, or isn't a target. But most of that stuff is insider badness, not 133t h@xx0rs coming in from the outside while on Jolt buzz. The malware is where all the action is - because that's how you plant keyloggers, etc., and GET inside access if you don't have an inside man. But, for now at least, the botnets are the real heavy artillary - and then also lead to spaminizing, which can deploy tools for id theft, etc. Malware is a bigger deal than ultra-crafty sneak-into-the-db-like-in-the-movies stuff I think, but YMMV.
4500 Ford car plant workers who wont be getting paid either for work they did 50 years ago
Actually, one of the main reasons that Ford (and GM, etc) are in such dire straights these days is because of the HUGE financial burden of paying large sums of money to people who have not worked for them for decades. Both as pensions, and (apparently, even more expensive) health care. One long-ago retired assembly line worker, in the last throws of lung cancer (just as an example) can cost Ford (and its currently working employees) hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course, they made that promise to the unions, so they deserve what they get... but a lot of people would say that it is exactly like getting paid for work you did a long time ago.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that they can get me access to a given business's clients database in the next 48 hours ? Didn't think so. So what are the gangs getting out of this ? Are they getting on a hype bandwagon ?
Getting access to a company's database is so 1990's. These days, you need smart computer science types to design better malware to create botnets so that you can practice good old fashioned extortion against Costa Rican casino web sites. Simple as that.
it's a better job offer than the other offers most kids are going to get, and it appeals to their interests... why are people surprised?
Um... for the same reason people might be surprised if non-crazy students who spend their years in college studying chemistry would look for "sponsorship" from a group that tells them they'll be building suitcase bombs for terrorists? Or an engineering/architecture student that's told they'll get a free ride through college as along as they agree to help break into banks once they graduate? This isn't any different.
How many people are genuinely untrustworthy?
I don't know, either. And since you didn't say how many are, neither do you. But it only takes one to cost a company millions of dollars, or run them right out of business entirely. I have clients that rely utterly on their customers' sense that they handle their data securely and that the team of people who touch that data are trustworthy. One slip could ruin those customers, cost people their jobs, homes... that's a lot more expensive than a background check, or the salary you have to pay someone who can easily pass one.
If you look at where firms lose the most money, and the risk factors, it's the lack of realistic background checks and clawback contracts for CEOs and CFOs that puts a company at risk, then the accounting staff, then sales and shipping staff, and way down you have IT staff.
Um... except the roque IT guy can do things to ruin the CEO's reputation, hose up teh CFO's reporting engine and wreck the balance sheets, leave the accounting team twiddling their fingers (or, unwittingly lying to the accountants), cause the sales people's communications to behave in a way that torpedos sales or relays vital marketing plans to competitors, and have the shipping people direct goods to the wrong addresses or right into oblivion.
The smaller the operation, the more vital the single guy's background is, since there are more solo opportunities to cause grief.
I didn't know that the headline questions were allowed to be rhetorical.
But then, taco could just hire an unknown editor, sans background check, to help with the editing. Because, what could go wrong?
... they will be serving Free Lunch at the trial.
You were proven wrong about "social equality" and are now trying to change the subject.
Nope! Not proven wrong, merely pointing out that "social equity" is a meaningless concept from the start. Um, unless you think that you and I should make exactly the same living regardless of what we each choose to do with our time, or how wisely we choose to spend out money (and time).
Slashdot gets money from advertisements regardless of whether some people reach into their pockets and buy books through a B & N link.
No, slashdot gets money from advertisements only if those advertisements perform for the people running the ads. How many times have you clicked those ads and then followed up by doing some business with one of the advertisers? Affiliate links to places like B&N or other vendors are just part of the wider revenue-generating efforts, and all of the techniques have good days and bad. Unless you're really complaining about the basic pursuit of raising enough money to run the site, pay the people who make it go, and keep it alive between slow periods, what are you complaining about?
Income inequality is greater in the USA than in other countries with comparable standards of living
I'm not wrong, because we're talking about two different things. Who cares if rich people are still rich, or more rich? I'm talking about whether poor people are still poor, using the same standards that the comment referred to (comparing to 50 years ago). My point is that "poor" people are living far, far better than they were 50 years ago, have more opportunities than ever before, and that any inability of them to take advantage of those opportunities is far more cultural than it is some result of a person with a big investment portfolio having seen his assets grow along with the economy for the last 5 decades.
All you're showing me is that the rich people in the US have been particularly successful, and that though we have a hugely progressive tax system that has them paying the lion's share of the taxes, it's just not as punitive as it is in some other countries. The gap is meaningless. Talk about the quality of life compared to the 50 years ago that this thread is actually talking about. Really talk about it, and be sure to include transporation, medicine, food quality, communications, life expectency, literacy, etc. That it's better doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's nothing like it was 50 years ago, to say nothing of 500 years ago.
If they wanted to show some real bias, they would have called them dead babies.
No, they would have called them "possible future Einsteins and Ghandis." Although I always get a laugh out of that one since they avoid the "possible future Idi Amins and Stalins," too. Look, mah, no Godwin!
We can compare relative wealth distribution
Which means nothing. Who cares what the relative distribution is if the "poor" people are living substantially better than ever before, and have more opportunities than ever before? Charting the upward movement in that standard of living is the meaningful pursuit. Carping about how a really rich person is still (or more) really rich is nothing but class baiting. Compare a "poor" resident of Kentucky today with his counterpart from 50 years ago, and you've got something to look at.
Social equity for me means that everyone who works should be able to afford to buy a house.
Really? How many bedrooms? In what neighborhood? Have you tackled the issue of everyone wanting perfect weather in their neighborhood, or will you give my money to people who live someplace where they have one more ice storm per year than where I live, but you'll give someone else's money to ME if that other person lives somewhere that grows slightly nicer grass than my climate does?
If we all should have the same standard of living, how do you differentiate between the person that has two children and the person who wants the same amount of per-capita living space for all 8 of their children? Should people's decisions not have any bearing on their quality of life when it comes to things like home ownership? If there should be some accountability, then what about accountability for choosing to study at school instead of party, or put off buying expensive rims for your old car, or work an extra few hours a week when you're young and healthy... all things that tend to already differentiate the homeowners from the non-homeowners.
You say that everyone who works should have a house. But what if I work harder? What if you show up and work, but do so unimaginatively, or without any discipline, or choose to work someplace that doesn't do anything of enough value to pay you enough to buy a house?
It means that athletes are not paid enormous sums of money when the job of a fireman, policeman or teacher is infinitely more important.
Well, that's easy. Don't pay athletes, and elect people to your city or county government that are willing to raise taxes to pay their fire and police people more money. Of course, you'll also have to convince millions of other people that the entertainment they get from watching very talented athletes isn't really as fun as they think it is, and they'll be much more able to afford those higher taxes if they'd just stop subscribing to ESPN.
More people can afford to buy tghese items than 30 years ago simply because they are less expensive--not because they are making more money today (with inflation taken in to account).
You're clueless. If people weren't making any more real money (taking inflation into account), then a family that previously could only afford rent, food, and clothing would still only be able to afford rent, food, and clothing. The fact that they can afford that (and that a higher percentage of them are also owning their homes) AND they can afford more entertainment material and technology means that you're wrong. A $1000 TV is still using up 2% of a household's net take-home of $50k/year. $1000 buys a lot of food, fuel, or clothing. A typical cell phone bill could buy a lot of food each month, to say nothing of a cable subscription. 50 years ago, these weren't even options. To have them available is an indication of an increased standard of living, across the board. Doesn't mean you have to buy them - but since you're comparing things to a few decades ago, you need to take into account that you're talking about things that are new on the scene. 40 years ago, you spent $0.50 to take in a movie, perhaps once a week. Now people sit in front of 200 cable channels for 30+ hours a week.
Antibiotics aren't luxuries
That's exactly my point. They aren't now. But at one point they were. Just like decent dentistry, or refridgeration. That is exactly how you illustrate that it isn't just the "rich" getting richer.
What I would be interested in is the change of wealth distribution over a long period of human history.
But that's where such conversations always go wrong. The pie isn't always the same size - it grows through production. We aren't just changing the way the economic pie is distributed, we're producing more pie. And, as you alluded to, we're also putting things like Penicillan into the mouths of dying babies for less than a hamburger costs - and someone from 500 years ago would have considered themselves rich indeed if they could live through an otherwise fatal infection for the cost of a meal.
Try comparing with 50 years ago instead of 500. Then we have not made progress, but taken many step backwards in social equality.
Really? By what measure? More people own their own homes. Unemployment is lower. Even lower income families have things that would have been considered utter luxuries 50 years ago (multiple televisions, cell phones, cable, cheap antibiotics, cheap fresh food of every imaginable kind, etc). What does "social equity" mean to you - that someone who is successful should not have a flatscreen TV until everyone does? Or that incredibly wealthy pro basketball players shouldn't be allowed to spend their cash until everyone can spend the same amount of cash?
rather than risk an invisible but painful attack
Oh, save it. You know perfectly well that you don't have to stand there in the middle of a bunch of drunken or violent asses that are intent on damage. If your radar is so bad that you can't tell that a large portion of the people immediately surrounding you are about to cause some real trouble, then you need to get out more. And if it's really only a couple of people, then you have to ask yourself why you and the other 99% who aren't looking for trouble can't either personally deal with the guy who's fumbling with his lighter and a bottle with a rag in it, or walk over to the nearest cop and tell them who it is that's trying to get things started, chaos-wise.
Using these tools against people BEFORE they have broken the law is wrong.
You're confusing the use of a crowd control device before the crowd does some stupid crap with using them as the crowd is doing stupid crap. Freedom of assembly and speech aren't damaged at all if 500 drunk frat boys dancing around a bonfire made up of a flaming police car and all of the books they just stole from the storefront they just trashed are dispersed by some non-lethal mechanism. You could march 100 police officers in, but you risk physical harm if they have to physically handle people to get them to leave, and you can't just call up 100 police officers in some mid-sized college town after you realize that idiots are pouring gasoline on utility poles and lighting them.
But if you position those officers right there, in advance, then you get accused of being Nazis. So, you can't win, if it's your job to keep the main street next door to Enormous State University intact until the next business day after a particularly exciting basketball game. So... things get out of hand, and a small number of crowd control officers could fire teargas cannisters (and risk hitting people in the head, catching clothes on fire, or killing asthmatics), or perhaps they could use some newer technlogy that doesn't involve high speed projectiles, incindiary devices, etc. That's what's being talked about here.
Implying that the only way to save time, injuries, thin municipal budgets, etc., is to use such devices in advance is nonsense. The whole idea is to give the law enforcement people responding to such mayhem something new, safer, and more effective with which to get things back to civilized without having to have the paramilitary-looking guys (who wear that stuff so they don't get cut up with broken glass, etc) there in the first place. And that reduces tensions. And if the twits that like to smash store windows, burn cars, and block streets understand that something passingly unpleasant is one of the tools in the police toolbox, they might even think twice about showing up with that molotov cocktail (or making one out of rum) in the first place. And, thus no mayhem, and thus no need to act in response. Good for everyone involved.
It is how you express that grievance that counts.
And how you define "expession." Having your home or business burned to the ground doesn't feel very much like someone was thoughtfully expressing something. Having your car dealership torched because someone thinks your products get 5mpg too little, or your medical lab trashed because people (wearing leather shoes!) think you're mean to rats, or your clinic bombed because you're mean to your own uterus - that stuff isn't "expression" except in the most craven sense of that word.
People who spend a month in chat rooms planning to block roads or disrupt someone else's use of a legitimate marching permit, etc., can't really complain with law enforcement ruins their day. In fact, they should be happy that they won't have to worry about a teargas cannister catching their giant puppet head, and then their hair, on fire as they concern themselves with shutting down a latte vendor.
Call it whatever you want. But actions are actions, and in a civil society - especiallly in a dense urban area - some crap has to be handled quickly before it spirals out of control. See L.A. after the Rodney King verdict, or any number of college towns after some vital, drop-dead-important freakin' football game. A lot of towns end up having to borrow a load of cash or raise taxes to buy fresh city vehicles, re-string power lines, and replace things like park benches because people have been witlessly "expressing" themselves.
Do you wonder why they are shooting at you in Iraq
You use the word "they" as if "the Iraqi people" are doing the shooting. Most of the people being shot by Iraqi people are other Iraqi people - but that's only a very small part of the carnage. Just like under Saddam - except that then, it was the minority Sunnis as brutally ruled by a family from Tikrit, killing people by the tens of thousands, for decades on end. Now you've got small sectarian cells fueled by cash and weapons from Iran and Syria, with the local Al Queda operator pouring gasoline on the fire. The average Iraqi is hardly rising up against the troops that are there training local forces, building infrastructure, and protecting the elected government as best they can from assasination attempts by foreign insurgents or would-be theocratic idiots that proclaim democracy to be un-Islamic.
anyone have really cared if richard reid had a bit of a smoke?
Ah! See, I didn't know that all he was trying to do, while lighting fuses going into the explosives in his shoes, was just to "have a smoke." Yes, your credibility is solid, solid, solid.
Just like every person shot or bombed in Iraq is an 'insurgent' or 'terrorist' because the US has magic 'insurgent seeking munitions'.
Do you have any idea how different that conflict would look if we did act like the insurgents and exhibit no concern over who got killed on the sidelines? If we know there's an Acme IED Factory franchise operating out of the basement of a Baghdad apartment building, we can either risk the lives of our own people, and try to surgically deal with it, or we can just drop some big ol' bombs on the neighborhood and totally level the entire place. Guess which happens the most often. That's how our team gets shot up on raids - by choosing not to level whole neighborhoods the easy way. And of course, the guy with the backpack full of Iraninan RPGs doesn't just go into the place with the "Insurgent Hotel" sign over the door - he operates out of the local civilian population specifically as a form of cover, knowing we don't just hose down entire city blocks to kill one guy. How many people who've been there, on the ground, hunting these clowns, have ever sat down with and had a beer? Ah, I see.
And sure there are really only 19 people on those rendition flights, the US just flew them around a lot for the ride.
Well, since you're an expert on who works those flights, on the intel that's gathered in advance of capturing people like KSM or his cronies, on the places where these people are kept, on the tactics that are used to weed out the ones that have the financial, logistical, and tactical connections to the people pulling the strategic strings - do tell! Since you're quick to say what it's not, explain what it is, and cite your sources.
There is no truth whatsoever to the Republicans' made up threats.
... let's design elaborate camps, fly people around the world, staff them with all sorts of expensive personnel and support facilities, so that we can murder us some innocent people! We have all of these highly trained special forces out there, who will hunt down and capture these innocent people, and then drag them all the way back to a camp where we'll kill them, since those special forces guys..." what? They aren't good enough with a weapon to kill the innocent people where they find them? Do you have any idea how absurd your point is? Your B Movie villain nonsense doesn't make any more sense in real life than it would in a cheesy movie.
Well, you're just factually incorrect (and, of course, you know you are). Ever had dinner with someone who spent months in the hospital after having pieces of flaming terrorist-piloted aircraft blow through her office and nearly kill her? Or are you more of the "it never happened" camp? I'm comfortable, having talked to eye witnesses, that it did. That was five years ago. Since then, fellow humans in places like Madrid or London would probably have no trouble convincing you that the threat from people deliberately planning, and executing, murderous attacks is not "made up," however comforting it must be to you to think that's the case. The cowardice you're accusing me of exhibiting is - to cite a little PSY101 - pretty much you projecting your own head-in-the-sand about this. If this stuff is all made up, would you advocate no security at boarding gates? No security around nuclear facilities? You can't have it both ways.
camps designed for the purpose of torture and murder of *innocent* peopl are death camps period
Ah, now I see. You're making an assertion like that (because who can argue that a camp designed to murder people isn't a death camp?), but carefully dodging the responsibility of explaining who sat around a table thinking "We need to murder some innocent people
You want a cheesy real life villain? Try guys like Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Sang like a bird and gave up much of his operation and contacts immediately after being captured. And, guess what! Not murdered. Man, we just can't run an effective death camp, I guess.
Move to Saudi Arabia. They're your sort of people there
Pleaes, just keep saying things like that. It saves me so much typing.