What law prohibits hiring a foreign worker for a campaign?
I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. I was too busy following the recent developments in the story. It appears that FEC violations would be the least of Cambridge Analytica's problems, considering there is now video tape of their CEO confessing to bribery, blackmail and using Ukranian prostitutes for purposes of blackmail (human trafficking). And not just once, but admitting on camera that they have a "history" of doing this. Did I mention that he said all these things on video?
It seems like as soon as one of these stories starts to break, all the bad guys can't help themselves but blurt out their crimes. It's like the part of the James Bond movie where the villain lays out his whole evil plan because he thinks he's gotten away with it and feels some twisted need for James Bond's approval or something.
I didn't see it mentioned in the Channel 4 story, but apparently over the past 48 hours there were superhuman efforts undertaken by Cambridge Analytica to keep this video confessional from being broadcast.
The whole thing is just so fucking absurd. I used to say that this entire Trump/Treason Saga was going to make for a great movie some day, but now I'm thinking that it's going to have to be at least a mini-series. Maybe directed by the Coen Brothers.
Not that you should have, because it is NOT illegal to hire overseas contractors
Yeah, it is.
but it IS illegal to accept overseas contributions as Obama did [thehill.com]
That opinion piece is by the famous Dick Morris, of Fox New/Hannity renown. You will notice he doesn't provide any citations or evidence. Just his assertions.
not to mention the Obama campaign was fined for illegal donations
They BRAGGED about doing the same things (and worse) than what they're accusing Cambridge of doing.
There's at least one big difference (besides the biggest difference which is that what the Obama data team did was nothing like what Trump's Cambridge Analytica team did, but let's put that aside for now). The people who were on Obama's data team were American citizens or were authorized to work in the US. Cambridge Analytica had a team made up primarily of foreign nationals who did not have US visas, green cards or work permits.
And, there is a law against that. Foreign nationals without green cards cannot work on US election campaigns even if they are volunteers.
I may be dead wrong on this, but it seems like many of the studies and papers put out today are funded by grants from organizations which often have a (even if subtle) political or ideological agenda.
I doubt the political or ideological agenda of current scientists is anywhere near as obvious, over-arching, and narrowly-defined as that of the Royal Society or Oxford of a century ago.
seriously though, the amount of papers in the cs field.. is that most of them are just crap published for the sake of publishing, starting even from basic things like making a paper on how some api works with 3 pages of filler. not even kidding.
That's always been the case in a lot of fields. People have to publish to get PhDs and keep jobs, so they publish a lot of filler.
That's not the same thing as publishing false science or retracting research. Something can be uninteresting research without being false and needing to be retracted. When I was a post-doc back when disco was big, I used to make extra money by proofreading papers, often by PhD candidates for whom English was a second language. I would be shocked at how thin a thesis could be. It didn't mean it was wrong, just that it was not exactly profound.
A Scientific journal of leading Scientific experts on Science agree with your negative conclusion. In fact, 98 % of all Science experts agree that Science is more accurate and Scientific than not has ever been before.
And 100% of random guys and Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot disagree.
When I played GTA V, it took a lot less than 2 months for me to start acting like my hero, Trevor Philips. I don't know what it was about that guy, but I found him a rather touching tragicomic character.
The scene after he gives Patricia Madrazo back to her Mexican gangster husband after kidnapping her and he's driving away from the exchange and "If You Leave Me Now" by Chicago starts playing in the car had me laughing and crying at the same time. Except for the credits sequence in Saints Row IV, I don't think anything in a video game has ever affected me so profoundly.
In America, some of the alternative media is nationalistic, and anti globalist.
And those are the ones who defend the current political power regime.
This is the part that's relatively new. Conspiracy media has always run counter to prevailing political power. To find instances of conspiracy media that supports prevailing political power, you have to go back to Germany in the late 1930s, and if I remember correctly it didn't work out so well.
If something is detrimental towards human survival, those traits which enable it or succumb to it will be selected against in the long run.
It is estimated that 150-200 species become extinct every day. Natural selection didn't save them, and there's no reason to believe natural selection will save us.
Plus, the ability (some might say, "propensity") of humans to do harm to each other (and themselves) develops much more rapidly than the mechanisms of natural selection.
You can probably argue that incrementally back all the way to the first cave paintings as well though.
The difference between the "alternative" and conspiracy media in the UK and the US outlets like Infowars is that David Icke actually challenges the prevailing political power structure, where Infowars supports and is used by the prevailing political power structure.
This is a complete reversal for conspiracy media in the United States. Until very recently, it was always hostile to those in power. Today, it is the tool of those in power.
But you can make that very same argument about anything used by humans.
That's true, but technology's efficiencies are potentially (I would say "especially") capable of making mass control more efficient.
That's why we have to be very, very careful about the technology we adopt. It's not morally neutral, as we've been told since the Industrial Revolution. Technology may be morally fungible, but it's not morally neutral.
I am the most beloved Slashdot commenter and have tremendous reputation, which is why I won the presidency of Slashdot by the biggest margin in history.
Technology provides us with the possibility of OBJECTIVE insight and provides framework for OBJECTIVE verification (with mathematics).
If only that were so. Unfortunately, until we can find perfect technology, developed by the Platonic ideal perfectly moral race of beings, technology is going to be used by bad people as a method of control and as a tool for tyrants.
A good example is how we are learning that the best way to secure honest elections is to abandon technology for something much older (paper ballots, counted manually with lots of people watching).
In before the racist ACs show up for this thread. It's probably already too late, except for the fact that it's Sunday morning so most of the racist ACs are probably in church right now.
We can solve problems related to climate change, Pinker argues, "if we sustain the benevolent forces of modernity that have allowed us to solve problems so far, including societal prosperity, wisely regulated markets, international governance, and investments in science and technology..
Just for the record here, Steven Pinker is a psychologist. He's making pronouncements on science.
But does Disney's The Little Mermaid preserve the themes of H. C. Andersen's original story more closely than Frozen keeps the themes of "The Snow Queen"?
No. In fact, the opposite is true. Anderson's Little Mermaid ends with her dissolving into sea foam, whereas Disney has her marrying the prince or some shit. Frozen is more faithful to the original.
But none of this speaks to the point, that everyone the alt-right embraces as some intellectual leader ends up being some flim-flam artist who wants to sell them special brain pills or self-help fairy tales. It's why fake news works on them, and it's why Donald Trump is their god-emperor. As long as there is sufficient reverse-virtue signaling, they will willingly suspend disbelief and discernment and follow in lockstep. It's "Listen and Believe".
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when Slashdot was about technology and news for nerds, not about websites and search engines and the internet.
I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. I was too busy following the recent developments in the story. It appears that FEC violations would be the least of Cambridge Analytica's problems, considering there is now video tape of their CEO confessing to bribery, blackmail and using Ukranian prostitutes for purposes of blackmail (human trafficking). And not just once, but admitting on camera that they have a "history" of doing this. Did I mention that he said all these things on video?
This is becoming so much fun.
https://www.channel4.com/news/...
It seems like as soon as one of these stories starts to break, all the bad guys can't help themselves but blurt out their crimes. It's like the part of the James Bond movie where the villain lays out his whole evil plan because he thinks he's gotten away with it and feels some twisted need for James Bond's approval or something.
I didn't see it mentioned in the Channel 4 story, but apparently over the past 48 hours there were superhuman efforts undertaken by Cambridge Analytica to keep this video confessional from being broadcast.
The whole thing is just so fucking absurd. I used to say that this entire Trump/Treason Saga was going to make for a great movie some day, but now I'm thinking that it's going to have to be at least a mini-series. Maybe directed by the Coen Brothers.
Yeah, it is.
That opinion piece is by the famous Dick Morris, of Fox New/Hannity renown. You will notice he doesn't provide any citations or evidence. Just his assertions.
Better read that article more closely.
Well, yes and no. Their math is often really bad, and their assumptions are often based on work done when psychology was crappy science.
But they have come a long way. Psychology is no longer the least rigorous science. Now it is just above Economics and just behind Parapsychology.
This just came across the transom. Apparently, Cambridge Analytica was doing more than just data mining for the Trump campaign.
https://boingboing.net/2018/03...
https://www.channel4.com/news/...
There's at least one big difference (besides the biggest difference which is that what the Obama data team did was nothing like what Trump's Cambridge Analytica team did, but let's put that aside for now). The people who were on Obama's data team were American citizens or were authorized to work in the US. Cambridge Analytica had a team made up primarily of foreign nationals who did not have US visas, green cards or work permits.
And, there is a law against that. Foreign nationals without green cards cannot work on US election campaigns even if they are volunteers.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/fo...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
On Slashdot:
"Self-driving cars are right now!"
also...
"Renewable energy is not ready for prime time!"
also...
"Electric cars are unpossible!"
also...
"Elon's taking us all to Mars!"
I doubt the political or ideological agenda of current scientists is anywhere near as obvious, over-arching, and narrowly-defined as that of the Royal Society or Oxford of a century ago.
That's always been the case in a lot of fields. People have to publish to get PhDs and keep jobs, so they publish a lot of filler.
That's not the same thing as publishing false science or retracting research. Something can be uninteresting research without being false and needing to be retracted. When I was a post-doc back when disco was big, I used to make extra money by proofreading papers, often by PhD candidates for whom English was a second language. I would be shocked at how thin a thesis could be. It didn't mean it was wrong, just that it was not exactly profound.
And 100% of random guys and Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot disagree.
I think I know who I'm betting on.
Despite your feelings to the contrary, the answer is no.
When I played GTA V, it took a lot less than 2 months for me to start acting like my hero, Trevor Philips. I don't know what it was about that guy, but I found him a rather touching tragicomic character.
The scene after he gives Patricia Madrazo back to her Mexican gangster husband after kidnapping her and he's driving away from the exchange and "If You Leave Me Now" by Chicago starts playing in the car had me laughing and crying at the same time. Except for the credits sequence in Saints Row IV, I don't think anything in a video game has ever affected me so profoundly.
https://youtu.be/bPADGxsf8a8
He was a loser and had terrible ratings. SAD!
And those are the ones who defend the current political power regime.
This is the part that's relatively new. Conspiracy media has always run counter to prevailing political power. To find instances of conspiracy media that supports prevailing political power, you have to go back to Germany in the late 1930s, and if I remember correctly it didn't work out so well.
It is estimated that 150-200 species become extinct every day. Natural selection didn't save them, and there's no reason to believe natural selection will save us.
Plus, the ability (some might say, "propensity") of humans to do harm to each other (and themselves) develops much more rapidly than the mechanisms of natural selection.
No, you probably can't.
The difference between the "alternative" and conspiracy media in the UK and the US outlets like Infowars is that David Icke actually challenges the prevailing political power structure, where Infowars supports and is used by the prevailing political power structure.
This is a complete reversal for conspiracy media in the United States. Until very recently, it was always hostile to those in power. Today, it is the tool of those in power.
That's true, but technology's efficiencies are potentially (I would say "especially") capable of making mass control more efficient.
That's why we have to be very, very careful about the technology we adopt. It's not morally neutral, as we've been told since the Industrial Revolution. Technology may be morally fungible, but it's not morally neutral.
I am the most beloved Slashdot commenter and have tremendous reputation, which is why I won the presidency of Slashdot by the biggest margin in history.
If only that were so. Unfortunately, until we can find perfect technology, developed by the Platonic ideal perfectly moral race of beings, technology is going to be used by bad people as a method of control and as a tool for tyrants.
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
A good example is how we are learning that the best way to secure honest elections is to abandon technology for something much older (paper ballots, counted manually with lots of people watching).
Somebody just got out of church, apparently. We've been expecting you.
In before the racist ACs show up for this thread. It's probably already too late, except for the fact that it's Sunday morning so most of the racist ACs are probably in church right now.
Just for the record here, Steven Pinker is a psychologist. He's making pronouncements on science.
That's rich.
That's never been more true.
No. In fact, the opposite is true. Anderson's Little Mermaid ends with her dissolving into sea foam, whereas Disney has her marrying the prince or some shit. Frozen is more faithful to the original.
But none of this speaks to the point, that everyone the alt-right embraces as some intellectual leader ends up being some flim-flam artist who wants to sell them special brain pills or self-help fairy tales. It's why fake news works on them, and it's why Donald Trump is their god-emperor. As long as there is sufficient reverse-virtue signaling, they will willingly suspend disbelief and discernment and follow in lockstep. It's "Listen and Believe".