The only problem is that if industry has to choose between flame retardant A, which is safe, and flame retardant B, which costs half as much, they will choose option B, even if retardant B is known to leach into ground water and cause birth defects. If retardant B is made readily available, then a manager can safely presume that most of the other facilities in his area will likely also choose option B, and if retardant B is found in ground water and tied years later to birth defects, he can rely on a strategy of plausible deniability, in that any retardant used at his facility would not be enough to cause all of the environmental damage in the area, and that the culprit must be some other facility or maybe the combined effect of all the industries in the area using the same retardant.
The tragedy of the commons is why we have agencies like the EPA, because industry in the past has been left alone to be trusted to do the right thing but in too many cases they chose to do the wrong thing because doing the right thing cut into their profit margins. Agencies like the EPA set a higher standard than what the free market could afford on its own, but, by leveling the playing field, complying with the regulations becomes affordable since competitors can't (legally) undercut on price by skimping on environmental safety. It's a system that can work well if the agencies aren't packed with pro-industry insiders who know that they can land a good future executive position or consulting gig at a major company as long as they play along and let the companies do what they want.
Actually, those chemicals are only harmful to delicate Californians. Here in Texas we have oil running through our veins, along with lead, mercury, arsenic, and many other colorful elements, so we've adapted to be tough enough to take on most of the cancer causing pollutants industry can throw at us. Sure, natural selection is still working through its slow process so we expect many bizarre birth defects and mutations, but we're convinced we will be much fitter after all is said and done.
Except that there is a huge number of people that presume that laws don't apply in "cyberspace". The global banking system is also a concept, one that has many similarities to "cyberspace", but only a fool would go about making financial transactions with the presumption that governments don't or can't control what he does in "finance-space". So maybe "cyberspace" does exist, but the perception that many laypersons have about "cyberspace" are most often inaccurate.
I think vux984 has a point though. "Banking space" has been around for hundreds of years, continues to evolve, and many of the concerns about "cyberspace" apply just the same to the global banking system. Barter became virtual by representing value with a universal standard such as gold that was in limited supply and could not easily be fabricated. Coinage further refined this standard by making it faster, easier, and safer to exchange commodities such as gold and other metals. Banking came into existance when people could leave their gold and other valuable assets with a specialist that could protect the hard assets, while the customers could hold onto a paper receipt to redeem their assets. The concept of bearer notes meant that traders could exchange paper rather than barter goods and services or lug around heavy coins. It also meant that bankers could make loans from other people's money and attract even more depositors by offering interest. Publicly traded stock, international currency exchanges, wire transfers, numbered accounts, fiat currency, and so on - the world of finance can be very complex and there are all sorts of issues that continue to affect our society today, such as international collections, multi-national corporations, offshore banking, money laundering, forgery, fraud, identify theft, etc.
Finance is not the only example of a complex concept with some of the same issues that are confronted in "cyberspace". But we don't refer to our money or our transactions as existing in "Finance-space". Governments have a wide assortment of laws that govern straight-forward and highly complex financial matters, including (perhaps especially) when financial transactions cross international borders. While the US Treasury's Secret Service may investigate counterfeit notes, and the SEC may enforce laws that regulate the trade of securities, there is no "Global Financial Police" or "Global Financial Government" (unless you think the Federal Reserve can do more than set interest rates or buy and sell US bonds). Also, unlike some people's concept of "cyberspace", there is no place, physical or virtual, where US citizens can conduct financial transactions free from US laws and regulations that govern just about any financial transaction conceivable. Now, there are offshore jurisdictions where you can get away with certain financial crimes, but if the US government finds out about it your only way to avoid prosecution may be to keep yourself physically outside of America's borders and stay clear away from countries that have extradition treaties with America.
Who else among academia are going to understand better that skills are usually made redundant by technological advance? Education is in high demand and salaries for professors have never been better. Why jeopardize that by replacing themselves with technology? After all, they know all too well that if they did it right a small board room of top tier professors could teach a whole nation with the right technology and eliminate the need for tens of thousands of workers drawing upper-middle-class salaries. It sure would be great for the few on top but the majority probably know that it wouldn't be them.
Managers may buy machines that replace workers, but they won't invest in computers to replace management. Same is true for physicians, lawyers, Professional Engineers, politicians, salesmen, accountants, real estate agents, stock brokers, licensed tradesmen (plumber, electricians, etc.). Only the most protected, organized, and proactively defended professions and trades will be able to withstand the dual effects of modernization (automation and information technology) and globalization (chasing cheap labor to the four corners of the earth). To succeed these professionals MUST convince their clientele, customers, bosses, managers, government officials, and the public at large that their job cannot be replaced by inhuman technology. The decision makers must be made to believe that their job requires a human touch, face time, or "intuition". Workers who wish to maintain their middle-class status and lifestyle need to establish strong and politically connected labor unions or trade organizations and/or pay for legislation that requires that their particular job can only be performed by a licensed individual with a specified level of education and experience. Those workers who do not will or already have become just another redundant commodity in a global labor pool of struggling masses. Relying primarily on years of experience and above average intellect to do a job essential to human civilization will not be enough to ensure viability.
Going forward aspiring professionals who wish to rise above the masses will need to be businessmen and think like a shrewd Fortune 500 executive. Insist that as the top [insert title] at your organization it is essential that you are given a seat on the board of directors and are granted an officer position in the company. When times are good demand a major portion of the windfall profits plus a portion now of the anticipated future earnings. When times are lean demand pay increases and "retention bonuses" to motivate you to stick it out with the firm. If the company is failing and gets bailed out by the government, demand a bonus to compensate you for your successful lobbying efforts. If the budget for your project increases, demand for your compensation to increase proportionally. Whenever anybody asks you to settle for a lesser role, title, or compensation, stomp your feet and slam the table and insist loudly with serious facial expression that the company will fail without your unique genius and expertise in your field.
Always maintain a personal website for your part-time consulting "side business" and list as many outrageous claims as possible that cannot be verified or substantiated. Publish a "list price" for turn-key solutions that would be several times higher than you are actually paid to do similar projects for your current employer. Publish your hourly consulting rate that is five to ten times higher than your equivalent hourly wage based on your salary at 40 hours per week. And every quarter increase your prices at a rate that matches the rising cost of healthcare, education, or energy, whichever is higher at the moment. When you go to your employer, customer, or shareholders, and they balk at the increase in compensation you are demanding to do your day job, just remind them of how much they are saving compared to what you earn consulting on the side. Show them your website and remind them periodically of how well your side gig is doing.
They're new to the world domination business, and clearly still wet behind the ears. When you're a legitimate world power, you are supposed to issue press releases and hold press conferences denying that you have a stealth aircraft or other advanced weaponry. Say it over and over again, pound your fist on the podium, go to the United Nations, and repeat "we do not possess any of the stealth fighters that have been spotted taking off and landing at Iranian air bases." Have your state media publish front page articles about dozens of witnesses seeing high tech weaponry and then have officials denying the existence of such. Carry on this campaign for about 5-10 years, then hold a conference to acknowledge that the reports were true but had to be kept secret for reasons of national security. In reality of course, there is no such program, but the whole world is convinced you have the technology and will be scared of you. The only drawback, of course, is that you might be taken too seriously and cause a whole lot of embarrassment when a real world power invades to overthrow your regime and discover the weapons.
Sure it's fun to laugh when the invaders have egg on their face for not finding the non-existing weapons, but then you're also no longer in power, hiding in a spider whole, and eventually caught, tried, and hanged.
Good point. And as everyone knows, the cost of education for average Americans has been skyrocketing out of control. Internationals paying full price just serves to push the price of education higher for everyone else. Sure it's good for administrators and it's job security for academics and it's great for textbook publishers, but does it really serve the founding mission of many of these schools?
Frankly, I'd prefer if more foreign students went back to where they came from to improve their own communities. I am amazed by the percentage of medical doctors in the USA who immigrated from third world countries and now earn their livings soaking middle class Americans. I want my doctor to actually care about my health, not just his bottom line. A doctor who cared would definitely want to take his medical skills and abilities back to his own people to improve their standard of living. With the exception of those fleeing from war or persecution, it is only greed that keeps them working as doctors in the USA instead of the impoverished areas of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Central/South America where they came from. In their homeland they would still most likely earn a standard of living much higher than their peers.
In the meantime there are plenty of qualified local candidates who speak the local dialect with the local accent, but not enough positions in the medical schools to accomodate them.
They already do this. It's the reason why colleges have "list" prices but most American born students get some sort of financial aid, such as grants and scholarships, or at least low interest federal student loans. This is even more common at graduate level for math, science and technology programs that attract lots of foreign students but few if any American born. If you're a US Citizen and want to study nanotechnology, presuming you're qualified, you can find a school that pay most of your costs in return for working as a teaching and/or research assistant.
Please read my comments within the context of this discussion. The question is whether or not civilians need to maintain the right to arm themselves against the potential threat of a tyrannical government. If you believe the propaganda today that America is the only light of democracy shining in a dark world of oppression, then you are delusional. Just barely over 100 years ago, in 1898, long after the Civil War and the end of slavery, the United States exploited the destruction of the battleship Maine to take over the last remnants of Spain's colonies. Historians believe that the explosion was either caused by an accident on board the ship or maybe by Cuban insurgents, not the Spanish government. Such a move would have been like blaming and invading Yemen for the US Cole attack.
And while propaganda at the time encouraged Cubans and Filipinos to join the Americans, the US spent years after the war with Spain suppressing the right to self determination in both Cuba and the Philippines. Tens of thousands of civilians were rounded up into concentration camps, thousands of which died of starvation and disease, while free-fire zones for some of the earliest machine guns and auto-cannons were established across the countryside. There are stories of American patrols coming into contact with guerillas, with horrendous atrocities committed by both sides. The occupation of the Philippines lasted 43 to 94 years, depending on who you talk to. When you read into the history it sounds more like some horrible mix between WWII and the Vietnam War.
I'm not suggesting that there is some magic bean that we can give to the victims of American expansionism, whether they be Native Americans, Cubans, or Filipinos. The way forward for peace is to forgive and forget and hopefully work together for greater mutual benefit. Today the US has great relations with Germany and Japan in spite of the atrocities committed during WWII.
But history is a very important tool to help us understand just what is possible and what can happen. It would be easy to presume that nobody would ever drop a nuclear bomb on a populated city, but history has proven the counter-example. None of us would ever buy a slave to work for us, but thousands of people have done so without feeling any guilt at all.
If nothing else I think that the revolution in Libya was a great example to show that when a civilian population arms themselves they can overthrow even some of the most tyrannical and powerful regimes. But in Libya thousands of unarmed protesters were slaughtered and for weeks they were virtually defenseless as most civilians were not allowed to own firearms. To arm themselves they had to storm police stations and military armories armed with nothing more than knives, clubs and molotov cocktails. Gaddafi's regime might have fallen much faster with fewer total casualties if civilians had ready access to the sorts of arms that you can buy at the corrner pawn shop in any US city.
Today I can live in the United States without any serious fear of tyranny or oppression. Some of our laws are stupid and need to be changed, and I am concerned about the influence that a small group of wealthy people and organizations can hold over our elected officials, but today I do not feel the impending need to defend myself, my family, or my rights. But I want the right to bear arms to be protected so that if there are unforseen events, such as a right-wing military coup, the popular majority can serve as an effective check and balance against any tyrannical movement. The 2nd amendment also helps ensure that minority groups, whether ethnic, racial, political, or religous, cannot be subjected to excessive abuse from the majority. Would Hitler have tried to implement his "final solution" if every Jewish family was armed in their homes and businesses with AR-15s, multiple clips, and thousands of rounds of ammo? Of course, most Jews were told they were going to be "relocated" and went to the gas chambers without much resistance, with a few exceptions such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
So copyright infringement without any possible commercial gain is just as bad as domestic terrorism and mass murder? There are thousands of convicted murderers that serve much less than 35 years. I think the OP has a point that a punishment should fit the crime. Otherwise, why not just take out all your personal adversaries with a modded AK47 if you're already committed to violating their copyright.
They were going to hold the exercises at a military base, but when they heard they could be TV stars on the season finale of Burn Notice, well they just couldn't turn down such an opportunity.
Good point. Any time I hear how magnificent, holy, Christian, or righteous our nation is or was, I just invoke the names of many of the native American tribes who were driven into desolate reservations in deserts and badlands that white immigrants couldn't grow corn on. I love how wealthy white people complain when they lose their homes to squatters that laws such as "adverse possession" are immoral, antiquated, and should be repealed. But adverse possession is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without such laws we would have to give it all back to the people we took it from.
It was old white men who put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, but defending your limited rights against a powerful government is something I'll support any day. It doesn't mean that the armed citizen will always win, but arms and the potential use of force allows people a stronger negotiating position. The US Cavalry couldn't "tame" the West until the introduction of the Gattling gun, which had a higher rate of fire and ammo capacity than any over-the-counter assault rifle you can buy today.
But if native peoples with rifles on horsebackwere no threat to US interests then I guarantee we would not have so many treaties that are still in effect today. Many people don't realize that on native lands state law does not apply. Reservations function as independent nations except that only Federal laws are enforced, and even such Federal enforcement is very rare.
Science in the 1930s was primitive? The same science that quickly lead to the mass production and distribution of television sets in every home? The science that brought us into the nuclear age? The introduction of plastic as a material?
Compared to today's standards, the study of ecology was perhaps "primitive". However, compared to the very limited understanding of the application of biological controls in the 1930s, today's geneticists also have not had decades upon decades of research to prove that genetic engineering is safe to implement on a massive universal scale. There's nothing wrong with scientific progress, but altering the genetic code of our most essential staple crops and growing only these crops on 90% of all the commercial farms around the entire world with only 10 years of industrial experience to draw from, how can we be 100% confident that "everything will be ok".
One of the most essential traits of scientists and engineers is to learn from our mistakes. There are too many examples of over-aggressive adoption of new, radical, and untested technology to allow ourselves to become arrogant and repeat the same disasters ourselves. We develop products, we analyze and test them in the lab, we simulate what we cannot test in the lab, and then we begin initial release of products to a limited test market for a period of time that may last months or in some cases even years before we fully adopt new technology. During the "test market" phase vulnerabilities are identified, products are recalled, design changes are implemented in the next production run, presuming that the entire project or program isn't scrapped and abandoned entirely. For many of these products the technology is mechanical or electrical, or a new application for chemicals or materials.
Safety hazards with most product designs have not usually harmed very many people, if any at all, when they are first identified, and the product recall and correction process is typically well coordinated and quickly implemented with most companies. But most products cannot reproduce or permanently alter the genetic traits of entire ecosystems and all their future descendents into prosterity. It does no good to recall a GMO crop if adjacent wild species have adopted the malignant genes and the mutant population continues to spread unchecked. There are many invasive weeds that share similar enough traits with conventional crops, that if they were to cross pollinate and adapt the Round Up resistant gene as well as the other engineered traits that favor rapid growth they could pose serious threats to our global agricultural system. And that's just one theoretical example. The real problems that might emerge from this might be unimaginable with our contemporary primitive understanding. There just hasn't been enough time to wait and study smaller test fields to be certain that this technology is safe to commit to and become dependent upon.
Unfortunately, as with countless other examples of radical emerging technology adopted too early and agressively, there is no great satisfaction with sitting back and shouting "I told you so". People at all levels (scientists, engineers, economists, environmentalists, businessmen, and consumers) who understand this very serious and irreversible potential danger have to do what they can to urge those with authority to make sure this technology is adopted reasonably and responsibly. Which means that we can't just commit our entire world's agricultural production to this technology. We have to implement in phases that permit sufficient time to gather and study the impact so that destruction is limited to test areas and not the entire world.
Nobody here is suggesting we put the lid back on Pandora's box and grow our own food in our backyards with hand tools and fertilizer from our pet goat. Rather, just making the point that adopting new technology in a safe and reasonable manner is the better way to proceed.
By the time humans arrive, the rover will be much older and wiser. But on the other hand, after decades in isolation, the rover may go "native" and repell any human landing as an invasion of its territory.
That's so true! It's just like the Cane Toad in Australia. It has been very effective at controlling pest insects on sugar cane fields ever since it was introduced in 1935, but the nay sayers are still convinced that the toads are an invasive species that are leading to severe breakdowns in Australian ecology. The nay sayers add to the hype by claiming that the cane toads are a nuissance to areas of human habitation, or even suggesting that there are risk of children or pets being poisoned from contact with toads.
They complain about the imagined threat posed by innocent little toads, but will they admit that they would be willing to go back 80 years and raise cane without the toads? Who could possibly imagine such a world so primitive as to even attempt to raise cane without cane toads? It is totally preposterous! If they weren't growing cane, what else could they have possibly grown in Queensland?
And a warning to those of us who support GMO with our hearts, souls, and wallets: They naysayers actually succeeded in getting the Australian government to ban importation of cane toads just after the initial release until a study could be completed to show that they were harmless. Fortunately for the industry, and the economy of Queensland, the ban was lifted in 1936. The danger posed by fearmongers who do not understand modern science and technology should not be under estimated. Just think - if the naysayers had their way, maybe there wouldn't even be ANY cane toads in Queensland today.
No. That type of regulation should be left to the free market. The same free market that permits hospitals to fire their staff for non-compliance with hospital policy. The only role the government could ever play in this scenario is to step for the rights of those "persecuted" for their religious beliefs. I am quite happy that so far the government has not taken such a stance.
If the Republican Party can hijack America's Christian churches to brainwash middle and low income people to support policies that work to their own detriment and go against the teachings of their own scriptures, why can't Anonymous hijack the computers of the middle and low income church-goers who willfully and knowingly download dozens of viruses, worms, and Trojans every time they visit their favorite porn sites?
They passively consent to handing over control of their brains to others, and they passively consent to handing control of their computers over to others (they never read the EULA or the TOS). Sounds like a balance of power to me. Except in both cases only the interests of the PRC will prevail.
1984. It was a novel published in 1949 written as entertainment and perhaps as a warning against the suppression and manipulation of free thought, but today it is the most popular textbook in the world's top business schools. If you want to know why the Koch brothers were the ones behind OWS you should read it.
In all seriousness, the largest single donor to the movement was former New York Mercantile Exchange vice chairman Robert Halper, who was noted by media as having also given the maximum allowable campaign contribution to Mitt Romney.
Your robot comment may have been meant as a joke, but there really is such a thing as a professional protestor. The going rate is reportedly $11/hr. I'm actually developing the website for a company that is booking passenger space on cargo ships to bring over 200-500 men and women with tourist visas from Jakarta, Mumbai, and Abidjan who have agreed to do the job in exchange for free room and board (which might be a tent in Times Square and two bowls of soup each day) until their visas expire. The owner claims that several organizations have signed contracts to employ his services to protest issues ranging from crime and poverty to offshore outsourcing, illegal immigration, and exploitation of workers. How they're going to get back home I have no idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem is that if industry has to choose between flame retardant A, which is safe, and flame retardant B, which costs half as much, they will choose option B, even if retardant B is known to leach into ground water and cause birth defects. If retardant B is made readily available, then a manager can safely presume that most of the other facilities in his area will likely also choose option B, and if retardant B is found in ground water and tied years later to birth defects, he can rely on a strategy of plausible deniability, in that any retardant used at his facility would not be enough to cause all of the environmental damage in the area, and that the culprit must be some other facility or maybe the combined effect of all the industries in the area using the same retardant.
The tragedy of the commons is why we have agencies like the EPA, because industry in the past has been left alone to be trusted to do the right thing but in too many cases they chose to do the wrong thing because doing the right thing cut into their profit margins. Agencies like the EPA set a higher standard than what the free market could afford on its own, but, by leveling the playing field, complying with the regulations becomes affordable since competitors can't (legally) undercut on price by skimping on environmental safety. It's a system that can work well if the agencies aren't packed with pro-industry insiders who know that they can land a good future executive position or consulting gig at a major company as long as they play along and let the companies do what they want.
Actually, those chemicals are only harmful to delicate Californians. Here in Texas we have oil running through our veins, along with lead, mercury, arsenic, and many other colorful elements, so we've adapted to be tough enough to take on most of the cancer causing pollutants industry can throw at us. Sure, natural selection is still working through its slow process so we expect many bizarre birth defects and mutations, but we're convinced we will be much fitter after all is said and done.
Except that there is a huge number of people that presume that laws don't apply in "cyberspace". The global banking system is also a concept, one that has many similarities to "cyberspace", but only a fool would go about making financial transactions with the presumption that governments don't or can't control what he does in "finance-space". So maybe "cyberspace" does exist, but the perception that many laypersons have about "cyberspace" are most often inaccurate.
I think vux984 has a point though. "Banking space" has been around for hundreds of years, continues to evolve, and many of the concerns about "cyberspace" apply just the same to the global banking system. Barter became virtual by representing value with a universal standard such as gold that was in limited supply and could not easily be fabricated. Coinage further refined this standard by making it faster, easier, and safer to exchange commodities such as gold and other metals. Banking came into existance when people could leave their gold and other valuable assets with a specialist that could protect the hard assets, while the customers could hold onto a paper receipt to redeem their assets. The concept of bearer notes meant that traders could exchange paper rather than barter goods and services or lug around heavy coins. It also meant that bankers could make loans from other people's money and attract even more depositors by offering interest. Publicly traded stock, international currency exchanges, wire transfers, numbered accounts, fiat currency, and so on - the world of finance can be very complex and there are all sorts of issues that continue to affect our society today, such as international collections, multi-national corporations, offshore banking, money laundering, forgery, fraud, identify theft, etc.
Finance is not the only example of a complex concept with some of the same issues that are confronted in "cyberspace". But we don't refer to our money or our transactions as existing in "Finance-space". Governments have a wide assortment of laws that govern straight-forward and highly complex financial matters, including (perhaps especially) when financial transactions cross international borders. While the US Treasury's Secret Service may investigate counterfeit notes, and the SEC may enforce laws that regulate the trade of securities, there is no "Global Financial Police" or "Global Financial Government" (unless you think the Federal Reserve can do more than set interest rates or buy and sell US bonds). Also, unlike some people's concept of "cyberspace", there is no place, physical or virtual, where US citizens can conduct financial transactions free from US laws and regulations that govern just about any financial transaction conceivable. Now, there are offshore jurisdictions where you can get away with certain financial crimes, but if the US government finds out about it your only way to avoid prosecution may be to keep yourself physically outside of America's borders and stay clear away from countries that have extradition treaties with America.
Who else among academia are going to understand better that skills are usually made redundant by technological advance? Education is in high demand and salaries for professors have never been better. Why jeopardize that by replacing themselves with technology? After all, they know all too well that if they did it right a small board room of top tier professors could teach a whole nation with the right technology and eliminate the need for tens of thousands of workers drawing upper-middle-class salaries. It sure would be great for the few on top but the majority probably know that it wouldn't be them.
Managers may buy machines that replace workers, but they won't invest in computers to replace management. Same is true for physicians, lawyers, Professional Engineers, politicians, salesmen, accountants, real estate agents, stock brokers, licensed tradesmen (plumber, electricians, etc.). Only the most protected, organized, and proactively defended professions and trades will be able to withstand the dual effects of modernization (automation and information technology) and globalization (chasing cheap labor to the four corners of the earth). To succeed these professionals MUST convince their clientele, customers, bosses, managers, government officials, and the public at large that their job cannot be replaced by inhuman technology. The decision makers must be made to believe that their job requires a human touch, face time, or "intuition". Workers who wish to maintain their middle-class status and lifestyle need to establish strong and politically connected labor unions or trade organizations and/or pay for legislation that requires that their particular job can only be performed by a licensed individual with a specified level of education and experience. Those workers who do not will or already have become just another redundant commodity in a global labor pool of struggling masses. Relying primarily on years of experience and above average intellect to do a job essential to human civilization will not be enough to ensure viability.
Going forward aspiring professionals who wish to rise above the masses will need to be businessmen and think like a shrewd Fortune 500 executive. Insist that as the top [insert title] at your organization it is essential that you are given a seat on the board of directors and are granted an officer position in the company. When times are good demand a major portion of the windfall profits plus a portion now of the anticipated future earnings. When times are lean demand pay increases and "retention bonuses" to motivate you to stick it out with the firm. If the company is failing and gets bailed out by the government, demand a bonus to compensate you for your successful lobbying efforts. If the budget for your project increases, demand for your compensation to increase proportionally. Whenever anybody asks you to settle for a lesser role, title, or compensation, stomp your feet and slam the table and insist loudly with serious facial expression that the company will fail without your unique genius and expertise in your field.
Always maintain a personal website for your part-time consulting "side business" and list as many outrageous claims as possible that cannot be verified or substantiated. Publish a "list price" for turn-key solutions that would be several times higher than you are actually paid to do similar projects for your current employer. Publish your hourly consulting rate that is five to ten times higher than your equivalent hourly wage based on your salary at 40 hours per week. And every quarter increase your prices at a rate that matches the rising cost of healthcare, education, or energy, whichever is higher at the moment. When you go to your employer, customer, or shareholders, and they balk at the increase in compensation you are demanding to do your day job, just remind them of how much they are saving compared to what you earn consulting on the side. Show them your website and remind them periodically of how well your side gig is doing.
They're new to the world domination business, and clearly still wet behind the ears. When you're a legitimate world power, you are supposed to issue press releases and hold press conferences denying that you have a stealth aircraft or other advanced weaponry. Say it over and over again, pound your fist on the podium, go to the United Nations, and repeat "we do not possess any of the stealth fighters that have been spotted taking off and landing at Iranian air bases." Have your state media publish front page articles about dozens of witnesses seeing high tech weaponry and then have officials denying the existence of such. Carry on this campaign for about 5-10 years, then hold a conference to acknowledge that the reports were true but had to be kept secret for reasons of national security. In reality of course, there is no such program, but the whole world is convinced you have the technology and will be scared of you. The only drawback, of course, is that you might be taken too seriously and cause a whole lot of embarrassment when a real world power invades to overthrow your regime and discover the weapons.
Sure it's fun to laugh when the invaders have egg on their face for not finding the non-existing weapons, but then you're also no longer in power, hiding in a spider whole, and eventually caught, tried, and hanged.
Good point. And as everyone knows, the cost of education for average Americans has been skyrocketing out of control. Internationals paying full price just serves to push the price of education higher for everyone else. Sure it's good for administrators and it's job security for academics and it's great for textbook publishers, but does it really serve the founding mission of many of these schools?
Frankly, I'd prefer if more foreign students went back to where they came from to improve their own communities. I am amazed by the percentage of medical doctors in the USA who immigrated from third world countries and now earn their livings soaking middle class Americans. I want my doctor to actually care about my health, not just his bottom line. A doctor who cared would definitely want to take his medical skills and abilities back to his own people to improve their standard of living. With the exception of those fleeing from war or persecution, it is only greed that keeps them working as doctors in the USA instead of the impoverished areas of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Central/South America where they came from. In their homeland they would still most likely earn a standard of living much higher than their peers.
In the meantime there are plenty of qualified local candidates who speak the local dialect with the local accent, but not enough positions in the medical schools to accomodate them.
They already do this. It's the reason why colleges have "list" prices but most American born students get some sort of financial aid, such as grants and scholarships, or at least low interest federal student loans. This is even more common at graduate level for math, science and technology programs that attract lots of foreign students but few if any American born. If you're a US Citizen and want to study nanotechnology, presuming you're qualified, you can find a school that pay most of your costs in return for working as a teaching and/or research assistant.
Please read my comments within the context of this discussion. The question is whether or not civilians need to maintain the right to arm themselves against the potential threat of a tyrannical government. If you believe the propaganda today that America is the only light of democracy shining in a dark world of oppression, then you are delusional. Just barely over 100 years ago, in 1898, long after the Civil War and the end of slavery, the United States exploited the destruction of the battleship Maine to take over the last remnants of Spain's colonies. Historians believe that the explosion was either caused by an accident on board the ship or maybe by Cuban insurgents, not the Spanish government. Such a move would have been like blaming and invading Yemen for the US Cole attack.
And while propaganda at the time encouraged Cubans and Filipinos to join the Americans, the US spent years after the war with Spain suppressing the right to self determination in both Cuba and the Philippines. Tens of thousands of civilians were rounded up into concentration camps, thousands of which died of starvation and disease, while free-fire zones for some of the earliest machine guns and auto-cannons were established across the countryside. There are stories of American patrols coming into contact with guerillas, with horrendous atrocities committed by both sides. The occupation of the Philippines lasted 43 to 94 years, depending on who you talk to. When you read into the history it sounds more like some horrible mix between WWII and the Vietnam War.
I'm not suggesting that there is some magic bean that we can give to the victims of American expansionism, whether they be Native Americans, Cubans, or Filipinos. The way forward for peace is to forgive and forget and hopefully work together for greater mutual benefit. Today the US has great relations with Germany and Japan in spite of the atrocities committed during WWII.
But history is a very important tool to help us understand just what is possible and what can happen. It would be easy to presume that nobody would ever drop a nuclear bomb on a populated city, but history has proven the counter-example. None of us would ever buy a slave to work for us, but thousands of people have done so without feeling any guilt at all.
If nothing else I think that the revolution in Libya was a great example to show that when a civilian population arms themselves they can overthrow even some of the most tyrannical and powerful regimes. But in Libya thousands of unarmed protesters were slaughtered and for weeks they were virtually defenseless as most civilians were not allowed to own firearms. To arm themselves they had to storm police stations and military armories armed with nothing more than knives, clubs and molotov cocktails. Gaddafi's regime might have fallen much faster with fewer total casualties if civilians had ready access to the sorts of arms that you can buy at the corrner pawn shop in any US city.
Today I can live in the United States without any serious fear of tyranny or oppression. Some of our laws are stupid and need to be changed, and I am concerned about the influence that a small group of wealthy people and organizations can hold over our elected officials, but today I do not feel the impending need to defend myself, my family, or my rights. But I want the right to bear arms to be protected so that if there are unforseen events, such as a right-wing military coup, the popular majority can serve as an effective check and balance against any tyrannical movement. The 2nd amendment also helps ensure that minority groups, whether ethnic, racial, political, or religous, cannot be subjected to excessive abuse from the majority. Would Hitler have tried to implement his "final solution" if every Jewish family was armed in their homes and businesses with AR-15s, multiple clips, and thousands of rounds of ammo? Of course, most Jews were told they were going to be "relocated" and went to the gas chambers without much resistance, with a few exceptions such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
Sorry, I should have referenced the US legal term "assault weapons". I stand corrected.
So copyright infringement without any possible commercial gain is just as bad as domestic terrorism and mass murder? There are thousands of convicted murderers that serve much less than 35 years. I think the OP has a point that a punishment should fit the crime. Otherwise, why not just take out all your personal adversaries with a modded AK47 if you're already committed to violating their copyright.
Chuck Norris used to do this to Dallas all the time back in the 90s.
They were going to hold the exercises at a military base, but when they heard they could be TV stars on the season finale of Burn Notice, well they just couldn't turn down such an opportunity.
Ever hear of Invasion USA starring Chuck Norris?
That'll show all those backwoods rebel rednecks and Klansmen in downtown Miami!
Good point. Any time I hear how magnificent, holy, Christian, or righteous our nation is or was, I just invoke the names of many of the native American tribes who were driven into desolate reservations in deserts and badlands that white immigrants couldn't grow corn on. I love how wealthy white people complain when they lose their homes to squatters that laws such as "adverse possession" are immoral, antiquated, and should be repealed. But adverse possession is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without such laws we would have to give it all back to the people we took it from.
It was old white men who put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, but defending your limited rights against a powerful government is something I'll support any day. It doesn't mean that the armed citizen will always win, but arms and the potential use of force allows people a stronger negotiating position. The US Cavalry couldn't "tame" the West until the introduction of the Gattling gun, which had a higher rate of fire and ammo capacity than any over-the-counter assault rifle you can buy today.
But if native peoples with rifles on horsebackwere no threat to US interests then I guarantee we would not have so many treaties that are still in effect today. Many people don't realize that on native lands state law does not apply. Reservations function as independent nations except that only Federal laws are enforced, and even such Federal enforcement is very rare.
Science in the 1930s was primitive? The same science that quickly lead to the mass production and distribution of television sets in every home? The science that brought us into the nuclear age? The introduction of plastic as a material?
Compared to today's standards, the study of ecology was perhaps "primitive". However, compared to the very limited understanding of the application of biological controls in the 1930s, today's geneticists also have not had decades upon decades of research to prove that genetic engineering is safe to implement on a massive universal scale. There's nothing wrong with scientific progress, but altering the genetic code of our most essential staple crops and growing only these crops on 90% of all the commercial farms around the entire world with only 10 years of industrial experience to draw from, how can we be 100% confident that "everything will be ok".
One of the most essential traits of scientists and engineers is to learn from our mistakes. There are too many examples of over-aggressive adoption of new, radical, and untested technology to allow ourselves to become arrogant and repeat the same disasters ourselves. We develop products, we analyze and test them in the lab, we simulate what we cannot test in the lab, and then we begin initial release of products to a limited test market for a period of time that may last months or in some cases even years before we fully adopt new technology. During the "test market" phase vulnerabilities are identified, products are recalled, design changes are implemented in the next production run, presuming that the entire project or program isn't scrapped and abandoned entirely. For many of these products the technology is mechanical or electrical, or a new application for chemicals or materials.
Safety hazards with most product designs have not usually harmed very many people, if any at all, when they are first identified, and the product recall and correction process is typically well coordinated and quickly implemented with most companies. But most products cannot reproduce or permanently alter the genetic traits of entire ecosystems and all their future descendents into prosterity. It does no good to recall a GMO crop if adjacent wild species have adopted the malignant genes and the mutant population continues to spread unchecked. There are many invasive weeds that share similar enough traits with conventional crops, that if they were to cross pollinate and adapt the Round Up resistant gene as well as the other engineered traits that favor rapid growth they could pose serious threats to our global agricultural system. And that's just one theoretical example. The real problems that might emerge from this might be unimaginable with our contemporary primitive understanding. There just hasn't been enough time to wait and study smaller test fields to be certain that this technology is safe to commit to and become dependent upon.
Unfortunately, as with countless other examples of radical emerging technology adopted too early and agressively, there is no great satisfaction with sitting back and shouting "I told you so". People at all levels (scientists, engineers, economists, environmentalists, businessmen, and consumers) who understand this very serious and irreversible potential danger have to do what they can to urge those with authority to make sure this technology is adopted reasonably and responsibly. Which means that we can't just commit our entire world's agricultural production to this technology. We have to implement in phases that permit sufficient time to gather and study the impact so that destruction is limited to test areas and not the entire world.
Nobody here is suggesting we put the lid back on Pandora's box and grow our own food in our backyards with hand tools and fertilizer from our pet goat. Rather, just making the point that adopting new technology in a safe and reasonable manner is the better way to proceed.
By the time humans arrive, the rover will be much older and wiser. But on the other hand, after decades in isolation, the rover may go "native" and repell any human landing as an invasion of its territory.
That's so true! It's just like the Cane Toad in Australia. It has been very effective at controlling pest insects on sugar cane fields ever since it was introduced in 1935, but the nay sayers are still convinced that the toads are an invasive species that are leading to severe breakdowns in Australian ecology. The nay sayers add to the hype by claiming that the cane toads are a nuissance to areas of human habitation, or even suggesting that there are risk of children or pets being poisoned from contact with toads.
They complain about the imagined threat posed by innocent little toads, but will they admit that they would be willing to go back 80 years and raise cane without the toads? Who could possibly imagine such a world so primitive as to even attempt to raise cane without cane toads? It is totally preposterous! If they weren't growing cane, what else could they have possibly grown in Queensland?
And a warning to those of us who support GMO with our hearts, souls, and wallets: They naysayers actually succeeded in getting the Australian government to ban importation of cane toads just after the initial release until a study could be completed to show that they were harmless. Fortunately for the industry, and the economy of Queensland, the ban was lifted in 1936. The danger posed by fearmongers who do not understand modern science and technology should not be under estimated. Just think - if the naysayers had their way, maybe there wouldn't even be ANY cane toads in Queensland today.
No. That type of regulation should be left to the free market. The same free market that permits hospitals to fire their staff for non-compliance with hospital policy. The only role the government could ever play in this scenario is to step for the rights of those "persecuted" for their religious beliefs. I am quite happy that so far the government has not taken such a stance.
That I would live to see the day that our nation would declare war on "terrorism" or that petitions signed "anonymous" would be taken seriously.
If the Republican Party can hijack America's Christian churches to brainwash middle and low income people to support policies that work to their own detriment and go against the teachings of their own scriptures, why can't Anonymous hijack the computers of the middle and low income church-goers who willfully and knowingly download dozens of viruses, worms, and Trojans every time they visit their favorite porn sites?
They passively consent to handing over control of their brains to others, and they passively consent to handing control of their computers over to others (they never read the EULA or the TOS). Sounds like a balance of power to me. Except in both cases only the interests of the PRC will prevail.
1984. It was a novel published in 1949 written as entertainment and perhaps as a warning against the suppression and manipulation of free thought, but today it is the most popular textbook in the world's top business schools. If you want to know why the Koch brothers were the ones behind OWS you should read it.
In all seriousness, the largest single donor to the movement was former New York Mercantile Exchange vice chairman Robert Halper, who was noted by media as having also given the maximum allowable campaign contribution to Mitt Romney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street
http://gawker.com/5850730/the-single-largest-benefactor-of-occupy-wall-street-is-a-mitt-romney-donor
Your robot comment may have been meant as a joke, but there really is such a thing as a professional protestor. The going rate is reportedly $11/hr. I'm actually developing the website for a company that is booking passenger space on cargo ships to bring over 200-500 men and women with tourist visas from Jakarta, Mumbai, and Abidjan who have agreed to do the job in exchange for free room and board (which might be a tent in Times Square and two bowls of soup each day) until their visas expire. The owner claims that several organizations have signed contracts to employ his services to protest issues ranging from crime and poverty to offshore outsourcing, illegal immigration, and exploitation of workers. How they're going to get back home I have no idea.