he point is that the middle and upper classes are the ultimate gatekeepers of what survives the centuries culturally because the lower class is, in the civilized world, too fickle to keep teaching the same things generation upon generation, as the middle and upper classes do with the great works of the Greeks and Romans.
Two points, first, of course the upper classes act as gatekeepers for culture. The history of human civilization is uneducated masses looking up to their social superiors. Second, it's not as if the upper classes are incapable of passing on the culture of the lower classes. For example I don't imagine barons were particularly concerned about marrying princes.
Religion is an interesting example. Maybe the powerful penned the texts (since the poor weren't literate), but religious art, including holy texts, more closely reflects folk culture than high society.
It's not about through who's eye the tale is seen, but rather, who's culture it reflects.
You're mostly right, but I'm not sure that helps your original point, that the cultural values of the underclasses don't survive.
No, there aren't widely known exemplars of folk art, but that's basically axiomatic. However, the thousands of Buddha statues, and shinto shrines, the countless cave painting, embroidery and lace samplers, etc, etc. are examples of the underclasses values and arts surviving.
As for fairy tales, and epic poems, the author is almost universally some unknown traveling bard, not Aesop, not Homer, and not the brothers Grimm. The people the fairy tales are attributed to are the collectors, not the authors, and they are considerably older than a couple of centuries. (Hans Christian Anderson is different - he is mostly an original author, but his work is also much more recent, like Rudyard Kipling).
Making terroristic threats is against the law in pretty much every country and would have gotten you arrested even before 9/11 and Columbine.
I'm a big supporter of privacy, but this is a big yawn for me. Assuming the post was public, it is wholly unsurprising that the FBI monitors it. It looks to me like the kid posted a public threat, the FBI's automated tools flagged it. A human review confirmed that it wasn't a false-positive, the appropriate authorities were notified, and finally the local authorities investigated.
FWIW, if I were a director of a governmental agency I would have leaked this in a heartbeat. This is how the system is supposed to work, and there's very little to be upset about from a civil libertarian perspective - you didn't think a public internet post was somehow private, did you?
Obviously I can't name folk artists (almost by definition), but a if I ask you to think about a culture (especially a non-western one), chances are you're going to picture their folk art and architecture.
This was a primary for US senate, and was probably the second line on the ballot after governor. There might be a few people who showed up for the primary to vote for governor and then just picked the first name the rest of the way down, US Senator is an office that gets a fair amount of interest. Greene won with 59% of the vote. It's inconceivable that an unknown person who did no campaigning would win with that percentage on the basis of listing order.
Well they predicted Obama would win - what more evidence do you need that they're left leaning?
In all seriousness, Nate Silver is a liberal. However, he is more loyal to his statistics than to any political party. His editorializing might be slanted, but I don't think his results are.
For example, TFA can't understand why lots of Republican voters turned out this year ("From eyeballing the GOP primary totals, it seems like turnout in that elections was almost ludicrously high..."), meaning that the idiot probably isn't aware that there is currently a very active movement based upon the consumption of a certain type of caffeinated beverages.
The author (or rather the poster the author is quoting) isn't suggesting that high republican turn out indicates fraud, but rather that high republican turn out suggests that republicans weren't crossing over to vote in the democratic primary.
We used to have an economy that wasn't so beholden to quarterly earnings reports that businesses actually invested in technologies that couldn't reasonably be expected to bring profits for a decade+.
Gone are the days of Bell Labs.
I have a degree in engineering and worked in a R&D department of a company who not only built it's (now fading) empire on pure science. In reality, they had been cutting their R&D budget for decades, and the corporate demographic is extremely bimodal with experts with 30+years of experience who are set to retire at one end and newbies with 10- years experience with no loyalty (like me) at the other, and nothing in between. When the boomers finally start retiring en masse so much institutional knowledge will be lost I don't think this 200 year old company is going to make it through the next 30.
Add to that the prevalent corporate notion that only PhDs can do research and I can easily see that structural problems will handicap the US' continued scientific ascendancy.
The fact that you know that other people failed probably indicates that the business improperly disseminated the results, which is probably another grounds for a suit.
I should add that there are other exemptions for businesses who handle controlled drugs, who work in areas of national security, or who provide security services.
The google tells me that private buisnesses can only administer polygraphs when investigating "ongoing investigations of economic loss or injury to the employer's business." So a specific incident of theft might allow an employer to request a polygraph. However, the law seems to be wrapped in so many layers of caveats that, were I a business owner, I would think the risk of getting sued outweighs the possible benefit of finding a thief. Among other things, you can't actually act on a polygraph test to discipline someone unless you have other evidence... at which point you're better off just using the other evidence, and you can't discipline someone who refuses to take a polygraph even if you suspect them of the theft.
Specifically, the people who were polygraphed who didn't have access to the equipment almost certainly had grounds to sue.
Alright, I've been digging around. It seems that deprecate is widely used in computer science to note obsolete code, but I'm not sure that usage extends to law.
The closest reference I can find is here Where the author complains that SCOTUS used the word deprecate where they should have said depreciate...
Clear and present danger was the the test SCOTUS used to determine if potentially dangerous speech was protected Schneck v. United States in 1919. In 1969 the court heard Brandenburg v. Ohio and held that speech was protected unless it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This is the standard that applies today.
As for grammatical prowess... Thinboy thinks I used the wrong word - I'm trying to figure out if he's right.
Even the most ardent advocates of gun ownership being available to any and everyone will probably agree that selling a gun to someone who has no idea how to use and store it safely is a bad idea.
Sure, but the question becomes when is something a bad enough idea to regulate or forbid it?
If they are a private organization, then state emphatically that they need to reconsider their position on polygraphs,
I'm fairly certain that private organizations are not allowed to use polygraphs at all. The only (sort of) exception is a job that requires top secret clearance. In that case the private job doesn't require you pass your polygraph, it just requires that you have the necessary clearance, which might include a government administered polygraph.
I was vaguely familiar with this case, but upon reading the wiki entry I couldn't help but chuckle at part of the judge's rational for allowing the book:
[i]n respect of the recurrent emergence of the theme of sex in the minds of [Joyce's] characters, it must always be remembered that his locale was Celtic and his season Spring.
The economy as a whole isn't a zero sum game. I invest some money in a company, it makes something of value and increases the overall size of the economy and (rightly) pays dividends.
20 minute speculative bets are zero sum. In 20 minutes nothing of value was created. When I buy something for a $1 and then sell it for $1.01 twenty minutes latter I'm not growing the economy, I'm taking $0.01 from someone else.
This shit is perverse. Not only does it destabilize the economy, it's literally skimming money off the top of the real economy to line the pockets of a few wealthy investors and traders who, speaking from an economic perspective are dead weight. (and then they complain about welfare...)
Capital holders controlling more if they're good at it is the whole point.
In theory.
In practice the Rockefellers, Rothchilds, and Vanderbilts control vast amounts of capital because someone several generations ago was very good at generating wealth.
I was with you up to here : "As soon as a government grants a monopoly, or bails out a fails company allowing the owner to keep control, the system is missing that feedback and can only fail."
Government intervention in may make regulated industries less efficient, but that doesn't guarantee failure. In some situations (say municipal water) we're willing to sacrifice efficiency for quality and reliability.
The other thing to consider is that monopolies, oligopolies and natural monopolies can and will arise in absence of regulation (e.g. standard oil). In these cases government regulation or even "granting" a monopoly may increase efficiency. Price controls may not be ideal, but they're still more efficient than unfettered monopoly rents.
Would you rather that the phone company not itemize these and hide what the charges are for?
abso-fucking-lutely. Then their advertised prices might resemble reality.
The problem is that my $30/month cellphone plan actually costs me $40/month. My girlfriends $65/month plan is more like $80. So lets say I'm thinking about changing carriers. Is a $35/month plan more or less expensive than my current plan?
Every buy a $150 airline ticket for $220 and then have to check your bags for $70? And lets not even get into the hidden fees in the financial industry.
This sort of bullshit should be actionable. If you advertise your price in big bold letters, that is what you should charge your customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Two points, first, of course the upper classes act as gatekeepers for culture. The history of human civilization is uneducated masses looking up to their social superiors. Second, it's not as if the upper classes are incapable of passing on the culture of the lower classes. For example I don't imagine barons were particularly concerned about marrying princes.
Religion is an interesting example. Maybe the powerful penned the texts (since the poor weren't literate), but religious art, including holy texts, more closely reflects folk culture than high society.
It's not about through who's eye the tale is seen, but rather, who's culture it reflects.
You're mostly right, but I'm not sure that helps your original point, that the cultural values of the underclasses don't survive.
No, there aren't widely known exemplars of folk art, but that's basically axiomatic. However, the thousands of Buddha statues, and shinto shrines, the countless cave painting, embroidery and lace samplers, etc, etc. are examples of the underclasses values and arts surviving.
As for fairy tales, and epic poems, the author is almost universally some unknown traveling bard, not Aesop, not Homer, and not the brothers Grimm. The people the fairy tales are attributed to are the collectors, not the authors, and they are considerably older than a couple of centuries. (Hans Christian Anderson is different - he is mostly an original author, but his work is also much more recent, like Rudyard Kipling).
Making terroristic threats is against the law in pretty much every country and would have gotten you arrested even before 9/11 and Columbine.
I'm a big supporter of privacy, but this is a big yawn for me. Assuming the post was public, it is wholly unsurprising that the FBI monitors it. It looks to me like the kid posted a public threat, the FBI's automated tools flagged it. A human review confirmed that it wasn't a false-positive, the appropriate authorities were notified, and finally the local authorities investigated.
FWIW, if I were a director of a governmental agency I would have leaked this in a heartbeat. This is how the system is supposed to work, and there's very little to be upset about from a civil libertarian perspective - you didn't think a public internet post was somehow private, did you?
African tribal masks.
Inuit totem polls.
Any fairy tale you can think of.
Ring around the Rosie.
Swedish Dala horses
the subset of graffiti that qualifies as art
Illuminated bibles
Buddha statues
Obviously I can't name folk artists (almost by definition), but a if I ask you to think about a culture (especially a non-western one), chances are you're going to picture their folk art and architecture.
It depends
This was a primary for US senate, and was probably the second line on the ballot after governor. There might be a few people who showed up for the primary to vote for governor and then just picked the first name the rest of the way down, US Senator is an office that gets a fair amount of interest. Greene won with 59% of the vote. It's inconceivable that an unknown person who did no campaigning would win with that percentage on the basis of listing order.
This election stinks to high heaven.
Well they predicted Obama would win - what more evidence do you need that they're left leaning?
In all seriousness, Nate Silver is a liberal. However, he is more loyal to his statistics than to any political party. His editorializing might be slanted, but I don't think his results are.
The author (or rather the poster the author is quoting) isn't suggesting that high republican turn out indicates fraud, but rather that high republican turn out suggests that republicans weren't crossing over to vote in the democratic primary.
We used to have an economy that wasn't so beholden to quarterly earnings reports that businesses actually invested in technologies that couldn't reasonably be expected to bring profits for a decade+.
Gone are the days of Bell Labs.
I have a degree in engineering and worked in a R&D department of a company who not only built it's (now fading) empire on pure science. In reality, they had been cutting their R&D budget for decades, and the corporate demographic is extremely bimodal with experts with 30+years of experience who are set to retire at one end and newbies with 10- years experience with no loyalty (like me) at the other, and nothing in between. When the boomers finally start retiring en masse so much institutional knowledge will be lost I don't think this 200 year old company is going to make it through the next 30.
Add to that the prevalent corporate notion that only PhDs can do research and I can easily see that structural problems will handicap the US' continued scientific ascendancy.
One other point.
The fact that you know that other people failed probably indicates that the business improperly disseminated the results, which is probably another grounds for a suit.
I should add that there are other exemptions for businesses who handle controlled drugs, who work in areas of national security, or who provide security services.
The google tells me that private buisnesses can only administer polygraphs when investigating "ongoing investigations of economic loss or injury to the employer's business." So a specific incident of theft might allow an employer to request a polygraph. However, the law seems to be wrapped in so many layers of caveats that, were I a business owner, I would think the risk of getting sued outweighs the possible benefit of finding a thief. Among other things, you can't actually act on a polygraph test to discipline someone unless you have other evidence ... at which point you're better off just using the other evidence, and you can't discipline someone who refuses to take a polygraph even if you suspect them of the theft.
Specifically, the people who were polygraphed who didn't have access to the equipment almost certainly had grounds to sue.
Alright, I've been digging around. It seems that deprecate is widely used in computer science to note obsolete code, but I'm not sure that usage extends to law.
The closest reference I can find is here Where the author complains that SCOTUS used the word deprecate where they should have said depreciate...
So now I'm thoroughly confused.
Clear and present danger was the the test SCOTUS used to determine if potentially dangerous speech was protected Schneck v. United States in 1919. In 1969 the court heard Brandenburg v. Ohio and held that speech was protected unless it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This is the standard that applies today.
As for grammatical prowess... Thinboy thinks I used the wrong word - I'm trying to figure out if he's right.
Sure, but the question becomes when is something a bad enough idea to regulate or forbid it?
clear and present danger is a depreciated test for free speech.
I'm fairly certain that private organizations are not allowed to use polygraphs at all. The only (sort of) exception is a job that requires top secret clearance. In that case the private job doesn't require you pass your polygraph, it just requires that you have the necessary clearance, which might include a government administered polygraph.
Extraction industries never wipe out poverty. All they every do (and all they have ever done) is make a few people extremely wealthy.
I was vaguely familiar with this case, but upon reading the wiki entry I couldn't help but chuckle at part of the judge's rational for allowing the book:
Here's the difference.
The economy as a whole isn't a zero sum game. I invest some money in a company, it makes something of value and increases the overall size of the economy and (rightly) pays dividends.
20 minute speculative bets are zero sum. In 20 minutes nothing of value was created. When I buy something for a $1 and then sell it for $1.01 twenty minutes latter I'm not growing the economy, I'm taking $0.01 from someone else.
This shit is perverse. Not only does it destabilize the economy, it's literally skimming money off the top of the real economy to line the pockets of a few wealthy investors and traders who, speaking from an economic perspective are dead weight. (and then they complain about welfare...)
AT&T will sell you data at $10/Gb after you exceed their limit? Isn't that what you want?
Verizon charges $0.05/MB after you exceed 5 GB - I'd call that price gouging.
In theory.
In practice the Rockefellers, Rothchilds, and Vanderbilts control vast amounts of capital because someone several generations ago was very good at generating wealth.
I was with you up to here : "As soon as a government grants a monopoly, or bails out a fails company allowing the owner to keep control, the system is missing that feedback and can only fail."
Government intervention in may make regulated industries less efficient, but that doesn't guarantee failure. In some situations (say municipal water) we're willing to sacrifice efficiency for quality and reliability.
The other thing to consider is that monopolies, oligopolies and natural monopolies can and will arise in absence of regulation (e.g. standard oil). In these cases government regulation or even "granting" a monopoly may increase efficiency. Price controls may not be ideal, but they're still more efficient than unfettered monopoly rents.
abso-fucking-lutely. Then their advertised prices might resemble reality.
The problem is that my $30/month cellphone plan actually costs me $40/month. My girlfriends $65/month plan is more like $80. So lets say I'm thinking about changing carriers. Is a $35/month plan more or less expensive than my current plan?
Every buy a $150 airline ticket for $220 and then have to check your bags for $70? And lets not even get into the hidden fees in the financial industry.
This sort of bullshit should be actionable. If you advertise your price in big bold letters, that is what you should charge your customers.
We're talking about naked black holes here.
The least you could do is buy it dinner.