You left out Communism., which killed far more than Fascism. Funny how you left that out and threw in "Organized Religion." That would seem hard to do if you are genuinely interested and opposed to "the most evil movements the human race has ever seen." It is actually backwards.
Racism! Racism! Racism! So that is the explanation? Sounds pretty simple, and no doubt there are all sorts of training, education, consciousness raising, rules, regulations, reports, graphs, ratios, inspections and oversight that you might suggest to address it.. (Along with many ardent comrades to perform the work!) Reminds me of something H L Menken said: "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. "
The problem is that assigning all of the problem to "racism" is that you are going to be missing a huge problem that is out there, one that is very old, and whose effects are well know through the ages. And the worst part from a Progressive perspective? It is color blind. Nonetheless, you should consider the following, including the quote from former president Barack Obama.
. . . Overall, teenagers in intact families are more likely to be emotionally healthy, have higher self-esteem, and progress further in education. Boys who have grown up with their married biological parents are particularly less likely to have behavioral problems, such as heightened aggression or substance abuse. Teenage pregnancy rates are seven to eight times higher for girls whose fathers are absent. As President Obama clearly stated in 2008, the absence of a father is significant:
We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
. . . In fact, children who do not have intact families are disproportionately concentrated in the lower third of the income scale. The FRC report reveals harsh realities for children from low-income communities. In Chicago, 86 percent of African American children don’t live with both of their married parents. Many poor neighborhoods across the U.S. show similar realities: 85 percent of children in Detroit and 64.5 percent of children in Richmond, Virginia, were born to single mothers.
How do you turn this around? The good news is that there are some amazing nonprofits whose goal is to help restore strong marriage. One example is First Things First in Richmond, which provides education programs that encourage active fatherhood and strengthen marriage in Richmond’s low-income communities. They teach adolescents and young adults the three keys to avoiding poverty: (1) graduate high school, (2) get married, and then (3) have kids. The order is important. Their results are real: More children are protected from the pain of broken families and the risks of poverty.
The advantage of working to build and sustain healthy families is that it pays dividends in many respects. The problems are not particularly nebulous and there are clear things to be done. Unfortunately, from some perspectives, the prospects for virtue signaling and outrage are not as good, hence indifference. Well, maybe not indifference.
You got me curious with that statement, so I checked. It seems you're wrong in more than one respect. Breitbart carried a story on it, and there seems to be a bigger game at play.
. . . the only logical 5d chess move is to get ZTE back in the business of selling security-compromised devices to Americans. Using the Dept of Commerce, paid for by American tax dollars.
I would be shocked if this was a backroom quid pro quo deal with China to expand the Trump brand business interests. Shocked I say.
I take it you're not a big 5d chess player either.
President Donald Trump’s decision to reverse sanctions on Chinese telecom giant ZTE was part of a larger trade agreement, according to a new report. - In exchange for easing the restrictions on ZTE, the Chinese government will not impose tariffs on US agricultural products like pork and wine. - The agricultural tariffs were imposed by China in response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. - The deal is not finalized yet and details still need to be worked out.
Exposing your business to the vagaries of totalitarian regimes is not a viable strategy.
ZTE is a Chinese company, and China...CHINA is the totalitarian country in this discussion. It is a little late for ZTE, although selling to other totalitarian countries under sanction was a bad idea. Is that why you seem so agitated to try to prop them up?
Exposing your business to the vagaries of totalitarian regimes is not a viable strategy
So when you stated that you were just kidding. It seems you're actually a backer of totalitarian regimes such as China, and want them and their enterprises to succeed. Well then. . . that would seem to make you a fan of bum ideas. . . in more than one sense.
She pretty much fit the definition of batshit insane. A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Nothing new there. Orwell wrote about it years ago.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
. . . Then in the 1990s, something started to change dramatically in how her students responded to the sobering tale. Rather than being horrified by it, some claimed they were bored by it, while others thought the ending was “neat.”
When Ms. Haugaard pressed them for more of their thoughts, she was appalled to discover that not one student in the class was willing to say the practice of human sacrifice was morally wrong! She describes one interaction with a student, whom she calls Beth:
“‘Are you asking me if I believe in human sacrifice?’ Beth responded thoughtfully, as though seriously considering all aspects of the question. ‘Well, yes,’ I managed to say. ‘Do you think that the author approved or disapproved of this ritual?’
“I was stunned: This was the [young] woman who wrote so passionately of saving the whales, of concern for the rain forests, of her rescue and tender care of a stray dog. ‘I really don’t know,’ said Beth; ‘If it was a religion of long standing, [who are we to judge]?’”
The initial problems you experienced were completely predictable, comrade. The academicians and nomenklatura at your institution lacked the proper socio-political awareness and training. Of course such a state is intolerable if we are to build a sound foundation for the future! The situation is being addressed.
Alas, the world we engineers envisioned as young students is not quite as simple and straightforward as we had wished because a phalanx of social justice warriors, ideologues, egalitarians, and opportunistic careerists has ensconced itself in America’s college and universities. The destruction they have caused in the humanities and social sciences has now reached to engineering.
One of the features of their growing power is the phenomenon of “engineering education” programs and schools. They have sought out the soft underbelly of engineering, where phrases such as “diversity” and “different perspectives” and “racial gaps” and “unfairness” and “unequal outcomes” make up the daily vocabulary. Instead of calculating engine horsepower or microchip power/size ratios or aerodynamic lift and drag, the engineering educationists focus on group representation, hurt feelings, and “microaggressions” in the profession.
An excellent example is the establishment at Purdue University (once informally called the “MIT of the Midwest”) of a whole School of Engineering Education. What is this school’s purpose? Its website tells us that it “envisions a more socially connected and scholarly engineering education. This implies that we radically rethink the boundaries of engineering and the purpose of engineering education.”
I have always thought my own education in engineering was as scholarly as possible. Once I became a professor, I never worried about how “socially connected” the education we provided at Michigan State for engineering students was. With trepidation, I read on to see if I was missing something important. I learned to my dismay that Purdue’s engineering education school rests on three bizarre pillars: “reimagining engineering and engineering education, creating field-shaping knowledge, and empowering agents of change.”
All academic fields shape knowledge and bring about change, but they don’t do that by “empowering” the agents of change. And what does “reimagining engineering” mean? The great aerodynamicist Theodore von Kármán said that “a scientist studies what is, while an engineer creates what never was.” In engineering, we apply scientific principles in the design and creation of new technologies for mankind’s use. It’s a creative process. Since engineering is basically creativity, how are we supposed to “reimagine creativity”? That makes no sense. . ..
The recently appointed dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley, has an ambitious agenda.
In her words (italics mine): “I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism. Gender is a key[theme][throughout] the course. We[examine] racist and colonialist projects in science.”
That starts off innocently enough, discussing the intersection of engineering with public policy and ethics, but then veers off the rails once Riley begins disparaging the free movement of capital, the role of Weste
Believing in meritocracy, promoting a "collegial" environment, and even deciding “to stay out of all of this ‘identity politics’” are all forms of tacit white supremacy, she claims.
I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, “Where are there police?!” Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass ..
Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”
Your point is well taken. Even so that only makes part of the problem go away. I don't see how one design is going to do it all even if you can mate it with different I/O, ram, etc. I doubt they can parameterize the design sufficiently to cover the range of uses this seems to be intended to cover. I expect there will have to be multiple variants to choose from, and the associated design support, etc.
But hey, if there is one thing we're short of its processor core IP.:|
Who has the say and responsibility for the design and in making trade-offs in design? There are going to be plenty to make, and different applications will need different things. Just a starter list includes things like: power requirements, instruction set and special instruction, performance, area, I/O, memory, self-test, coprocessors, design technology and tools, fab technology, supporting libraries and tool kits, and so on. Who will support design integration at the application level? Who wins when the performance hungry AI side runs up against the power and heat sensitive mobile device side?
That is before you get to manufacturing. Who will fab them? In what technology? Who will qualify parts? Who will stock the inventory? Who closes the loop between hardware defects and design?
Who will build and support the software tool chain? (Including the special tweaks needed for niche applications?)
Who will hold the patents? Copyrights?
Forming a grand coalition is the easy part. Getting something useful out of it is a much bigger challenge, especially when it comes down to actual hardware instead of just high level "standards".
No doubt this is potentially a highly significant development, and an early example of a powerful tool that shows the way to the future. I expect that this sort of technology will prove useful in developing many desirable chemicals for many purposes. But, one of the things I wonder about is the potential for reduced understanding and insight among the people using it, and where it might lead. Mathematics is already confronted by machine generated results that are beyond the ability of humans to check. And I remember reading of results that seemed to be correct, but the method that they were arrived at was impenetrable. Trust the machine(s)? How far? Is this another area where AI might prove dangerous to humanity?
Chess computers are now pretty much able to beat any human. Amazingly now computers playing Go seem to be heading in the same direction. Brute strength and clever algorithms combine to search possibilities far beyond what a human can. Someday will AI search out a subtle "final solution" for humanity that will take 10 generations to come to fruition? Checkmate?
How can we safeguard our future from subtle, malevolent AI?
Sand dunes in the area are quite mobile during storm events and heavy rain, so the bottle could have been subject to "cyclical periods of exposure" which could have led to the cork in the bottle drying out and becoming dislodged, "while the tightly rolled paper along with a quantity of sand remained inside preserved".
"The narrow 7mm bore of the bottle opening and thick glass would have assisted to buffer and preserve the paper from the effects of full exposure to the elements, providing a protective microenvironment favourable to the paper's long-term preservation," the report added.
At least the bottle wasn't stuffed full of messages from the GNAA.
What do you have against the German Nautical Analytics Association?
Let me guess - you joined as part of a wave of applicants after some major oceanographic event, stormed off after some unintended insult, drifted off into other interests, didn't keep your dues current, and now you wind up here, complaining about them. I've heard that one before.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out Communism., which killed far more than Fascism. Funny how you left that out and threw in "Organized Religion." That would seem hard to do if you are genuinely interested and opposed to "the most evil movements the human race has ever seen." It is actually backwards.
Racism! Racism! Racism! So that is the explanation? Sounds pretty simple, and no doubt there are all sorts of training, education, consciousness raising, rules, regulations, reports, graphs, ratios, inspections and oversight that you might suggest to address it.. (Along with many ardent comrades to perform the work!) Reminds me of something H L Menken said: "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. "
The problem is that assigning all of the problem to "racism" is that you are going to be missing a huge problem that is out there, one that is very old, and whose effects are well know through the ages. And the worst part from a Progressive perspective? It is color blind. Nonetheless, you should consider the following, including the quote from former president Barack Obama.
New Report: Majority of U.S. Teens Don’t Live in Intact Families
. . . Overall, teenagers in intact families are more likely to be emotionally healthy, have higher self-esteem, and progress further in education. Boys who have grown up with their married biological parents are particularly less likely to have behavioral problems, such as heightened aggression or substance abuse. Teenage pregnancy rates are seven to eight times higher for girls whose fathers are absent. As President Obama clearly stated in 2008, the absence of a father is significant:
We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
. . . In fact, children who do not have intact families are disproportionately concentrated in the lower third of the income scale. The FRC report reveals harsh realities for children from low-income communities. In Chicago, 86 percent of African American children don’t live with both of their married parents. Many poor neighborhoods across the U.S. show similar realities: 85 percent of children in Detroit and 64.5 percent of children in Richmond, Virginia, were born to single mothers.
How do you turn this around? The good news is that there are some amazing nonprofits whose goal is to help restore strong marriage. One example is First Things First in Richmond, which provides education programs that encourage active fatherhood and strengthen marriage in Richmond’s low-income communities. They teach adolescents and young adults the three keys to avoiding poverty: (1) graduate high school, (2) get married, and then (3) have kids. The order is important. Their results are real: More children are protected from the pain of broken families and the risks of poverty.
The advantage of working to build and sustain healthy families is that it pays dividends in many respects. The problems are not particularly nebulous and there are clear things to be done. Unfortunately, from some perspectives, the prospects for virtue signaling and outrage are not as good, hence indifference. Well, maybe not indifference.
Shapiro on why the Left loves broken families
The family is a bulwark against the State, so obviously if you are a Leftist who loves the big State you cannot stand strong, independent families.
With apologies to Inigo Montoya, . . you keep referring to that Amendment. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or is that inconceivable?
Rather depressing since sometimes reality likes to assert itself in extremely unpleasant ways. . .
Agreed.
I know, right? I mean its like, whatever.
* cough *
We now know why Trump suddenly reversed course on sanctions against a Chinese tech giant
Ah yes, the "Clintons". . . maybe you are looking at the wrong stories?
You got me curious with that statement, so I checked. It seems you're wrong in more than one respect. Breitbart carried a story on it, and there seems to be a bigger game at play.
Kudlow on Administration’s China Trade Actions: ‘Don’t Blame Trump, Blame China’
We now know why Trump suddenly reversed course on sanctions against a Chinese tech giant
It seems the thinking and operation of real estate investor/developers is beyond your ken.
We now know why Trump suddenly reversed course on sanctions against a Chinese tech giant
. . . the only logical 5d chess move is to get ZTE back in the business of selling security-compromised devices to Americans. Using the Dept of Commerce, paid for by American tax dollars.
I would be shocked if this was a backroom quid pro quo deal with China to expand the Trump brand business interests. Shocked I say.
I take it you're not a big 5d chess player either.
We now know why Trump suddenly reversed course on sanctions against a Chinese tech giant
President Donald Trump’s decision to reverse sanctions on Chinese telecom giant ZTE was part of a larger trade agreement, according to a new report.
- In exchange for easing the restrictions on ZTE, the Chinese government will not impose tariffs on US agricultural products like pork and wine.
- The agricultural tariffs were imposed by China in response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs.
- The deal is not finalized yet and details still need to be worked out.
Exposing your business to the vagaries of totalitarian regimes is not a viable strategy.
ZTE is a Chinese company, and China ...CHINA is the totalitarian country in this discussion. It is a little late for ZTE, although selling to other totalitarian countries under sanction was a bad idea. Is that why you seem so agitated to try to prop them up?
Exposing your business to the vagaries of totalitarian regimes is not a viable strategy
So when you stated that you were just kidding. It seems you're actually a backer of totalitarian regimes such as China, and want them and their enterprises to succeed. Well then. . . that would seem to make you a fan of bum ideas. . . in more than one sense.
Your post is functionally equivalent to stating that you are Constitutionally illiterate regarding how US Federal elections work.
Hey! Look!
A new Clinton wave is coming this spring
It looks like Hillary 2020 could be coming! There's your chance for a "do over."
She pretty much fit the definition of batshit insane. A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
Nothing new there. Orwell wrote about it years ago.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL,
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Animal Rights: A Dangerous Aspect of Our New Secular Religion
‘Who are you to judge?’
. . . Then in the 1990s, something started to change dramatically in how her students responded to the sobering tale. Rather than being horrified by it, some claimed they were bored by it, while others thought the ending was “neat.”
When Ms. Haugaard pressed them for more of their thoughts, she was appalled to discover that not one student in the class was willing to say the practice of human sacrifice was morally wrong! She describes one interaction with a student, whom she calls Beth:
“‘Are you asking me if I believe in human sacrifice?’ Beth responded thoughtfully, as though seriously considering all aspects of the question. ‘Well, yes,’ I managed to say. ‘Do you think that the author approved or disapproved of this ritual?’
“I was stunned: This was the [young] woman who wrote so passionately of saving the whales, of concern for the rain forests, of her rescue and tender care of a stray dog. ‘I really don’t know,’ said Beth; ‘If it was a religion of long standing, [who are we to judge]?’”
How a Generation Lost Its Common Culture
Tomorrow's menus will include a fine selection of steamed frogs, lightly killed by the most gradual temperature increases.
Anyway I've no idea why . . .
Obviously. A pity though, since it isn't that hard to understand.
I think you're spending far too much time cluching your pearls and complaining about how peope areusing their freeze peach all wrong.
Oooh! Aren't you precious!
The initial problems you experienced were completely predictable, comrade. The academicians and nomenklatura at your institution lacked the proper socio-political awareness and training. Of course such a state is intolerable if we are to build a sound foundation for the future! The situation is being addressed.
Engineering Education: Social Engineering Rather than Actual Engineering
Alas, the world we engineers envisioned as young students is not quite as simple and straightforward as we had wished because a phalanx of social justice warriors, ideologues, egalitarians, and opportunistic careerists has ensconced itself in America’s college and universities. The destruction they have caused in the humanities and social sciences has now reached to engineering.
One of the features of their growing power is the phenomenon of “engineering education” programs and schools. They have sought out the soft underbelly of engineering, where phrases such as “diversity” and “different perspectives” and “racial gaps” and “unfairness” and “unequal outcomes” make up the daily vocabulary. Instead of calculating engine horsepower or microchip power/size ratios or aerodynamic lift and drag, the engineering educationists focus on group representation, hurt feelings, and “microaggressions” in the profession.
An excellent example is the establishment at Purdue University (once informally called the “MIT of the Midwest”) of a whole School of Engineering Education. What is this school’s purpose? Its website tells us that it “envisions a more socially connected and scholarly engineering education. This implies that we radically rethink the boundaries of engineering and the purpose of engineering education.”
I have always thought my own education in engineering was as scholarly as possible. Once I became a professor, I never worried about how “socially connected” the education we provided at Michigan State for engineering students was. With trepidation, I read on to see if I was missing something important. I learned to my dismay that Purdue’s engineering education school rests on three bizarre pillars: “reimagining engineering and engineering education, creating field-shaping knowledge, and empowering agents of change.”
All academic fields shape knowledge and bring about change, but they don’t do that by “empowering” the agents of change. And what does “reimagining engineering” mean? The great aerodynamicist Theodore von Kármán said that “a scientist studies what is, while an engineer creates what never was.” In engineering, we apply scientific principles in the design and creation of new technologies for mankind’s use. It’s a creative process. Since engineering is basically creativity, how are we supposed to “reimagine creativity”? That makes no sense. . . .
The recently appointed dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley, has an ambitious agenda.
In her words (italics mine): “I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism. Gender is a key[theme][throughout] the course. We[examine] racist and colonialist projects in science.”
That starts off innocently enough, discussing the intersection of engineering with public policy and ethics, but then veers off the rails once Riley begins disparaging the free movement of capital, the role of Weste
You've left out some of the real charms of the current era.
Profs claim scientific objectivity reinforces 'whiteness'
Professor Claims Math, Algebra And Geometry Promote ‘White Privilege’
The Appalling Protests at Evergreen State College
All-women's college asks profs not to call students 'women'
Professor notes men are taller than women on average, SJWs storm out angrily
Americans who practice yoga 'contribute to white supremacy', claims Michigan State University professor
Conservatives, Libertarians Are ‘on the Autistic Spectrum,’ Says Duke Professor
Victimhood Culture Only Getting Worse, Professor Warns
Professor: Small Chairs in Preschools Are Sexist, ‘Problematic,’ and ‘Disempowering’
Prof creates checklist for detecting white supremacy
Believing in meritocracy, promoting a "collegial" environment, and even deciding “to stay out of all of this ‘identity politics’” are all forms of tacit white supremacy, she claims.
She Carried A Garrotte!
I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, “Where are there police?!” Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass . .
Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”
I could go on, there are so many stones unturned.
Your point is well taken. Even so that only makes part of the problem go away. I don't see how one design is going to do it all even if you can mate it with different I/O, ram, etc. I doubt they can parameterize the design sufficiently to cover the range of uses this seems to be intended to cover. I expect there will have to be multiple variants to choose from, and the associated design support, etc.
But hey, if there is one thing we're short of its processor core IP. :|
The requirements and consequences are pretty different between:
>>make world
and
>>fab chip --with $$$$$
One of those is trivially and cheaply repeatable, variable, and testable. The other is not.
Who has the say and responsibility for the design and in making trade-offs in design? There are going to be plenty to make, and different applications will need different things. Just a starter list includes things like: power requirements, instruction set and special instruction, performance, area, I/O, memory, self-test, coprocessors, design technology and tools, fab technology, supporting libraries and tool kits, and so on. Who will support design integration at the application level? Who wins when the performance hungry AI side runs up against the power and heat sensitive mobile device side?
That is before you get to manufacturing. Who will fab them? In what technology? Who will qualify parts? Who will stock the inventory? Who closes the loop between hardware defects and design?
Who will build and support the software tool chain? (Including the special tweaks needed for niche applications?)
Who will hold the patents? Copyrights?
Forming a grand coalition is the easy part. Getting something useful out of it is a much bigger challenge, especially when it comes down to actual hardware instead of just high level "standards".
No doubt this is potentially a highly significant development, and an early example of a powerful tool that shows the way to the future. I expect that this sort of technology will prove useful in developing many desirable chemicals for many purposes. But, one of the things I wonder about is the potential for reduced understanding and insight among the people using it, and where it might lead. Mathematics is already confronted by machine generated results that are beyond the ability of humans to check. And I remember reading of results that seemed to be correct, but the method that they were arrived at was impenetrable. Trust the machine(s)? How far? Is this another area where AI might prove dangerous to humanity?
Computer generated math proof is too large for humans to check
Chess computers are now pretty much able to beat any human. Amazingly now computers playing Go seem to be heading in the same direction. Brute strength and clever algorithms combine to search possibilities far beyond what a human can. Someday will AI search out a subtle "final solution" for humanity that will take 10 generations to come to fruition? Checkmate?
How can we safeguard our future from subtle, malevolent AI?
I thought that nobody needed more than 640 teraflops?
1. Does it run Linux?
2. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Building a Beowulf Cluster in just 13 steps
How many cluster nodes per cm^3?
It seems likely the construction of the bottle had something to do with it.
Oldest message in a bottle found on Western Australia beach
Sand dunes in the area are quite mobile during storm events and heavy rain, so the bottle could have been subject to "cyclical periods of exposure" which could have led to the cork in the bottle drying out and becoming dislodged, "while the tightly rolled paper along with a quantity of sand remained inside preserved".
"The narrow 7mm bore of the bottle opening and thick glass would have assisted to buffer and preserve the paper from the effects of full exposure to the elements, providing a protective microenvironment favourable to the paper's long-term preservation," the report added.
At least the bottle wasn't stuffed full of messages from the GNAA.
What do you have against the German Nautical Analytics Association?
Let me guess - you joined as part of a wave of applicants after some major oceanographic event, stormed off after some unintended insult, drifted off into other interests, didn't keep your dues current, and now you wind up here, complaining about them. I've heard that one before.
Maybe this will cheer you up. The Russians are brining back political commisars.