As someone else pointed out, I significantly underestimated the size of the UofC and Harvard endownments. Rather than $1 bil and $2 bil respectively, it's more like $8 bil and $36 bil.
I suppose I was still thinking about how rich the endowments were back when I first realized the size of the scam some years ago.
It also tells you how fast these endowments are growing.
You're a recent college grad. Donate to your university.
That may be the worst possible use of charity funds. University endowments do little but grow and become fiefdoms for development departments and university presidents. University of Chicago has over a billion dollars and Harvard has like twice that. They ask for money constantly (I get the mailings) but keep raising tuition, while replacing real professors with low-paid adjuncts.
Higher education in the United States has become a complete scam. When I graduated over thirty years ago, I donated to my alma mater until I spent the time to look into exactly what they were doing with the money.
you dont have to keep it local but recirculating money in your own location is better than shipping it to other areas.
You bet. EFF and the Chicago Food Depository are two at the top of my list, but we've also made a sizable donation to http://www.law-arts.org/ because they helped me out a lot on several occasions when I was just starting out. Also, the Chicago Justice Project, http://chicagojustice.org/ gets some dough because they're actually trying to do some good here. They're data wonks who are fighting to get more transparency in Chicago policing and the data that Chicago policing generates. Tracy Siska is a good dude that has been a constant source of aggravation for the past few Chicago mayors and police chiefs, and I like that.
Though the old girl and I donate close to 10% of our annual income, the biggest donations I make are of my own time. Last Saturday, I spent the day busting sod over at the Englewood Community Garden, where students from Lindblom Academy (a public school in Chicago's inner city) have designed and built a terrific big organic community garden to address the food desert issue in that neighborhood. http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago... . I'm unskilled labor when it comes to vegetable gardens though. The wife does a lot better.
The problem is not the reading, but the recording.
That's the truth. The ALR automates the process of a cop having to read a license plate, call it in and wait for a response. That's fine.
Of course it can also automate the process of collecting movement data on every driver, but it doesn't seem like having ALRs on police cruisers would be a very good way to do that. Stationary ALRs seem like a much bigger threat to privacy.
Hey, it is not racism if it is said in jest or if the parties are white...
I agree.
The sociological definition of racism requires "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities".
Sorry, I know of no (in)appropriate Polish jokes to tell. Something something submarines. Something something seagulls over Poland something... Pretty funny, eh?
...does that help you out any, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
You still have not demonstrated why buying a vote should not be protected speech, if money=speech and voting=speech, assuming the Citizens United rationale.
* spending gobs of money to provide a platform from which a candidate gets his/her message across is not the act of buying a vote, so it is legal.
* spending gobs of money in an attempt to literally purchase individual votes for a candidate is illegal.
You just restated the current law, not the legal rationale. Citizens United is now being used to strike down individual state anti-corruption laws. Why couldn't it be used to strike down anti-vote buying laws?
Remember, money=speech, thus laws abridging the freedom of using laws to buy speech are now considered unconstitutional. If voting=speech (I don't see how you can say it is not), then why shouldn't I be able to buy your speech?
I don't have to demonstrate it. Many peer reviewed papers have already demonstrated it. If wealth decreases compassion, and wealth has grown exponentially for the already wealthy, then as a society we are rewarding people for decreased compassion.
In fact, we reward the most sociopathic with the greatest rewards. Just look at the fallout from the 2008 financial collapse. The only people that made out were the ones that caused the collapse.
Corporate donations above a certain amount were also illegal until Citizens United. But if money=speech, then I don't see how vote buying can stay illegal under the same legal rationale.
That's why we'll eventually look back at Citizens United the same way we look back at Plessy v Ferguson, Breedlove v Suttles or Bush v Gore (a Supreme Court decision so awful that the Supreme Court has made it uncitable).
Truly horrible analogy I'm afraid. It's a very weak attempt at extortion. *Buy this magazine, or we shoot the dog*. That kind of guilt trip doesn't compute in my simple mind.
Alright, so what about just using "speech = money" to tell people I will pay them $50 to vote a certain way?
Why isn't that protected speech? If money = speech, then by god, voting most definitely equals speech. How is my selling my vote NOT protected by the First Amendment? As long as the voter isn't a public official, how can it be bribery?
C'mon, man. You know better. The evil is in the taking, not the offering.
In many SuperPACs, there is no "taking". It's people using their own money to influence elections in ways that were illegal since before the Civil War.
Yes, this means, that people with more money will have an advantage. No, I don't see, how this is automatically a bad thing.
It's not "automatically" a bad thing. It has just worked out that way.
And, our society rewards people with lots of money for being sociopaths. I bet you can see how that might lead to problems if they gain political power.
Only the vote is a vote. People who let money influence their vote is the thing to address. You are attacking an inanimate object.
How would you feel about this:
There is a swing state on which the entire presidential election hangs. I announce that I've set up a fund that will randomly choose a county in that state and gift each person in that county $100, but only if a particular candidate wins the presidency. You get paid no matter who you voted for, but you must prove that you voted.
Would that be legal under your expansive view of the First Amendment?
If so, how about if I go into a city and offer every voter $50 to vote for my hand-picked mayoral candidate? Why would that NOT be protected speech, if you believe money=speech?
I understand that one of the problems with landing the planes manually was that the Polish pilots kept coming to the end of the runway before they could land. One exclaimed, "Why do they make these damned runways 50 times wider than they are long?"
He analyzes polls based on in-house bias, then he weights them when he does his meta-analysis.
Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He aggregates polls and comes up with probable outcomes based on his model.
I remember media reports about how polling was becoming less reliable back in 2008 and 2012. But as long as they are unreliable in a reliable way, people like Nate Silver seem to be able to deal.
I didn't even know my ISP had a spam filter. I have spam filters on my accounts and the junk folder fills up constantly. In fact, my ISP is one of the worst spam offenders, sending me constant offers for great deals if I just sign up for their cable TV and other "special deals".
Then again, Gamergate would never have taken off if the journalists and websites hadn't attacked gamers in the first place.
"Taken off"? If becoming synonymous with hatred, harassment, child porn, racism, sexism and "men's rights activists" is "taking off", then you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.
Do you know what nobody associates with Gamergate? Ethics in Journalism.
So, to those of you saying that boys and girls can't share the same interests, and that it's right that marketers aim stuff to do with princesses and fairies at girls, and dinosaurs and superheroes at boys, and pretending Feminists are demanding things they're not and demonizing that group that's trying to ensure my daughter has the same opportunities I did, on behalf of my daughter and I, I wish you a hearty fuck you.
Happy Father's Day, my brother.
We've taken that approach since my daughter was born 24 years ago, and in the Fall, she'll get her PhD in Math. It pays off not to push gender stereotypes. Look what it's done to the MRAs, who now can't read the word "women" without pissing themselves in fury. They're a very small minority in the world, so as you say, fuck them.
No, marketing is the science of persuading people to choose to live differently
Not the way it's being done today, no. It hasn't been "persuasion" since about 1960.
Please tell us how getting government subsidies to develop products that otherwise nobody wants, or making massive commissions off carbon trading, is not acting out of greed and self interest.
"Nobody wants"? What the fuck are you talking about? If you want to discuss the subsidies to the oil industry, this might turn into a teaching moment for you.
In any case, yes, Al Gore is acting out of greed and self interest; without "climate change" as his hobby horse, the guy would be utterly irrelevant.
That would be an interesting point if Al Gore was the only person talking about climate change.
You are really stupid. Off to the Fox News Sin Bin with you.
I've not even heard such a goal proposed before. The panic over population growth isn't as severe as it used to be, as it's becoming clear that population does eventually level off naturally.
When you say, "level off naturally" are you counting the starvation, displacement and epidemics?
I don't believe the Pope is going to come out and say something like, "limit your families to 2 children" or anything like that. He's not going to endorse abortion. But he's not an idiot. He knows very well that by advocating for more equitable distribution of resources and wealth, and for the education of women, he's effectively insuring smaller families.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone else pointed out, I significantly underestimated the size of the UofC and Harvard endownments. Rather than $1 bil and $2 bil respectively, it's more like $8 bil and $36 bil.
I suppose I was still thinking about how rich the endowments were back when I first realized the size of the scam some years ago.
It also tells you how fast these endowments are growing.
That may be the worst possible use of charity funds. University endowments do little but grow and become fiefdoms for development departments and university presidents. University of Chicago has over a billion dollars and Harvard has like twice that. They ask for money constantly (I get the mailings) but keep raising tuition, while replacing real professors with low-paid adjuncts.
Higher education in the United States has become a complete scam. When I graduated over thirty years ago, I donated to my alma mater until I spent the time to look into exactly what they were doing with the money.
Sounds like someone's been unlucky with the women.
You bet. EFF and the Chicago Food Depository are two at the top of my list, but we've also made a sizable donation to http://www.law-arts.org/ because they helped me out a lot on several occasions when I was just starting out. Also, the Chicago Justice Project, http://chicagojustice.org/ gets some dough because they're actually trying to do some good here. They're data wonks who are fighting to get more transparency in Chicago policing and the data that Chicago policing generates. Tracy Siska is a good dude that has been a constant source of aggravation for the past few Chicago mayors and police chiefs, and I like that.
Though the old girl and I donate close to 10% of our annual income, the biggest donations I make are of my own time. Last Saturday, I spent the day busting sod over at the Englewood Community Garden, where students from Lindblom Academy (a public school in Chicago's inner city) have designed and built a terrific big organic community garden to address the food desert issue in that neighborhood. http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago... . I'm unskilled labor when it comes to vegetable gardens though. The wife does a lot better.
That's the truth. The ALR automates the process of a cop having to read a license plate, call it in and wait for a response. That's fine.
Of course it can also automate the process of collecting movement data on every driver, but it doesn't seem like having ALRs on police cruisers would be a very good way to do that. Stationary ALRs seem like a much bigger threat to privacy.
I agree.
The sociological definition of racism requires "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities".
Could be better, but don't stop trying.
Damn big government making people safer.
You still have not demonstrated why buying a vote should not be protected speech, if money=speech and voting=speech, assuming the Citizens United rationale.
You just restated the current law, not the legal rationale. Citizens United is now being used to strike down individual state anti-corruption laws. Why couldn't it be used to strike down anti-vote buying laws?
Remember, money=speech, thus laws abridging the freedom of using laws to buy speech are now considered unconstitutional. If voting=speech (I don't see how you can say it is not), then why shouldn't I be able to buy your speech?
Why are you so opposed to liberty?
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files...
http://scalar.usc.edu/works/gr...
I don't have to demonstrate it. Many peer reviewed papers have already demonstrated it. If wealth decreases compassion, and wealth has grown exponentially for the already wealthy, then as a society we are rewarding people for decreased compassion.
In fact, we reward the most sociopathic with the greatest rewards. Just look at the fallout from the 2008 financial collapse. The only people that made out were the ones that caused the collapse.
Corporate donations above a certain amount were also illegal until Citizens United. But if money=speech, then I don't see how vote buying can stay illegal under the same legal rationale.
That's why we'll eventually look back at Citizens United the same way we look back at Plessy v Ferguson, Breedlove v Suttles or Bush v Gore (a Supreme Court decision so awful that the Supreme Court has made it uncitable).
We're not talking about a "reasonably well-governed society". We're talking about the post-Capitalist United States.
Here's your evidence:
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://opinionator.blogs.nytim...
Alright, so what about just using "speech = money" to tell people I will pay them $50 to vote a certain way?
Why isn't that protected speech? If money = speech, then by god, voting most definitely equals speech. How is my selling my vote NOT protected by the First Amendment? As long as the voter isn't a public official, how can it be bribery?
In many SuperPACs, there is no "taking". It's people using their own money to influence elections in ways that were illegal since before the Civil War.
How about we just require losing candidates to reimburse all of their donors?
Presto! Problem solved.
It's not "automatically" a bad thing. It has just worked out that way.
And, our society rewards people with lots of money for being sociopaths. I bet you can see how that might lead to problems if they gain political power.
How would you feel about this:
There is a swing state on which the entire presidential election hangs. I announce that I've set up a fund that will randomly choose a county in that state and gift each person in that county $100, but only if a particular candidate wins the presidency. You get paid no matter who you voted for, but you must prove that you voted.
Would that be legal under your expansive view of the First Amendment?
If so, how about if I go into a city and offer every voter $50 to vote for my hand-picked mayoral candidate? Why would that NOT be protected speech, if you believe money=speech?
What did you do with the real Fustakrakich?
I understand that one of the problems with landing the planes manually was that the Polish pilots kept coming to the end of the runway before they could land. One exclaimed, "Why do they make these damned runways 50 times wider than they are long?"
He analyzes polls based on in-house bias, then he weights them when he does his meta-analysis.
Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He aggregates polls and comes up with probable outcomes based on his model.
I remember media reports about how polling was becoming less reliable back in 2008 and 2012. But as long as they are unreliable in a reliable way, people like Nate Silver seem to be able to deal.
I didn't even know my ISP had a spam filter. I have spam filters on my accounts and the junk folder fills up constantly. In fact, my ISP is one of the worst spam offenders, sending me constant offers for great deals if I just sign up for their cable TV and other "special deals".
"Taken off"? If becoming synonymous with hatred, harassment, child porn, racism, sexism and "men's rights activists" is "taking off", then you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.
Do you know what nobody associates with Gamergate? Ethics in Journalism.
Revenue on a chaise lounge.
Happy Father's Day, my brother.
We've taken that approach since my daughter was born 24 years ago, and in the Fall, she'll get her PhD in Math. It pays off not to push gender stereotypes. Look what it's done to the MRAs, who now can't read the word "women" without pissing themselves in fury. They're a very small minority in the world, so as you say, fuck them.
Not the way it's being done today, no. It hasn't been "persuasion" since about 1960.
"Nobody wants"? What the fuck are you talking about? If you want to discuss the subsidies to the oil industry, this might turn into a teaching moment for you.
That would be an interesting point if Al Gore was the only person talking about climate change.
You are really stupid. Off to the Fox News Sin Bin with you.
When you say, "level off naturally" are you counting the starvation, displacement and epidemics?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/st...
I don't believe the Pope is going to come out and say something like, "limit your families to 2 children" or anything like that. He's not going to endorse abortion. But he's not an idiot. He knows very well that by advocating for more equitable distribution of resources and wealth, and for the education of women, he's effectively insuring smaller families.