213374U

Shady, I want to buy your rock.

How and why would you prevent it? I mean, the guy is co-founder, I doubt they could have just offered him More Money. We'll probably never know the real reasons why he's leaving, so speculate away...

That **** would give Frank Horrigan nightmares.

No, but the government does choose what he is charged with. And it's not treason. I admit, I was wrong — he probably wouldn't be tried for treason, but for "willfully communicating classified information to an unauthorized person", as per 18 U.S. Code § 798. You never know, though. The contention would be whether the leaks were in "any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States", seeing as PRISM is of dubious legality to begin with. If it were eventually declared illegal, could he still be charged for blowing the whistle on it? Heh. It's funny because Snowden leaks stuff about secret mass surveillance and he faces imprisonment and hefty fines. Lyudmila Savchuk exposes Russian internets trolling ops and she... gets fired. And in response, she sues her former employer. It's like they really are doing it "for the lulz".

Wow, look at this! BruceVC once again using words he doesn't actually understand! I'm shocked. Now, for what treason really is: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html And no, he didn't compromise the security of his country, because mass surveillance has been shown to be useless as far as "securing" anything goes. This was proven to you mathematically by Al2O3, and the FBI has admitted it as well. Wake the **** up. So, no. Snowden is neither legally nor morally a traitor, no matter what dumbass pundits or, more worryingly, Congressmen and Senators keep saying.

I've been here for ten years. And you're just now discovering that I'm not very bright? Anyway, regarding your take on the actual purpose of paid shills, what do you suggest the consensus on doing something about the Kremlin should be, and why is it up to us to do something? Historically, getting involved in other countries' internal affairs hasn't worked very well in general, and has gone especially badly in the case of Russia. Yeah, we (well, you, not me in particular) should be talking more about GCHQ because you are a UK citizen and not a Russian citizen. You are partly responsible for what the UK government does with your tax money, much like I'm partly responsible for the rampant corruption and mismanagement of the Spanish state. They are part of our obligations as citizens of so-called democratic societies, since you brought it up. Russia is neither democratic nor our country. In short, if instead of Monte it had been Fighter posting this, I'd probably have skipped the GCHQ reference. Oh, and I'm sure Snowden would prefer to be at home in the US, were it not for the trumped-up treason charges he'd face if he went back. Track record on whistleblower protection isn't exactly impressive over there, mate.

Oh, nice. I got SR4 a while ago at a friend's urging so we could play coop, and had a blast (though we didn't really play that much coop after all). I'm getting SR3, thanks for the heads-up. A pity Dragonfall hasn't been translated yet, otherwise I'd get it as a gift. :/

Oh, no, no. I didn't mean that sort of thing. As I said, and evidenced by how seriously both oby and Bruce are taken by people here, I'd wager the effectiveness of gov't plants is fairly limited. I meant more stuff like the leaks about GCHQ's cyberwarfare and propaganda tools. (I know I sound like ****ing broken record, what can I say, we all need a schtick)

I know you're joking, but... *cough* high quality *cough* In all seriousness, I don't think this is meant as an actual J'accuse by Monte, just continuing the old in-joke about alts, trolls and paid shills here. The article itself is hardly news at this point, though. We've had reports of this before, and as far as what governments do on the internets it's rather tame (not to mention lame). I'd like to know what the effectiveness of these groups is, as their operatives are so strident that I doubt they actually succeed in convincing anyone (if you've read the comments section of a news site you know what I'm talking about) that isn't already a member of the fan club. However, I do find it odd that peeps are seemingly more interested in what the KGB FSB Kremlin's community manager does than what the government they may have voted into office is doing. Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^ gotta love scientists essentially accusing other scientists of confirmation bias and then discarding their findings based on... nothing but their own biases.

In sociology and anthropology, there is no such thing as "The One Study (to rule them all)", and anyone contending otherwise should be regarded with suspicion. Problem is "appeals to common sense" are, in some cases fallacious without malice, and in others an outright exercise in deceit by oversimplifying things. They simply have no place in even semi-serious discussion. Hell, even the guy from "the best show in the universe" realizes this. His video is funnier, more informative and a hell of a lot more rigorous. If she was trying to debunk the narrative from "Feminism 101", she should have presented the evidence she alludes to, and my point is that you wouldn't accept such weak argumentation from someone you didn't agree with beforehand. If her evidence was insufficient, suffered from methodological problems or was just plain old factually wrong, then it would be a weak refutation and she would have to try harder (better luck next time!). But at least that would be an honest attempt at trying to get people to examine the issue by themselves and form an informed opinion, rather than the boring shot at getting people to drink the Kool-Aid we ended up with. That's how we progress towards truth, by examining facts and discarding hypotheses that are contradicted by them, not by walking in the general direction we'd like truth to be in, and presenting evidence later. In this context, the process is more important than the result. But critically, you are glossing over the worst part of the video (from 3:18 on), where she discusses what leads people to go for the career paths and make the decisions they do. She ridicules the social conditioning hypothesis (complete with the "watch out, badass over here" gesture) and discards it by saying that "perhaps in the pursuit of happiness men and women take somewhat different paths" (no **** Sherlock) and that "it's patronizing to suggest that women aren't free and self determining human beings". That is a by-the-book appeal to emotion, it is a rhetorical trick to lend an appearance of substance to an otherwise worthless argumentation. It is also quite difficult to excuse as an honest mistake or poor choice of words. Not to mention that it flies in the face of what we know about conditioning and the decision-making process. But, eh, details. I have no idea if she's an incredibly serious scholar that always acts in good faith and her books are proof of this -first time I've heard of this lady- but I haven't time to read them and they are not what we're discussing here. And at any rate, the video doesn't exactly inspire me to dig into her work. (I'd appreciate it if you didn't make me watch the video again...)

Well, unlike the second video and the one linked by Kirottu, she does not provide a single link or mention a specific study to back her claims. "Most workplace pay gaps narrow to the point of vanishing when one accounts for all of these relevant factors". I can guarantee that without a ****ton of citations, that would trigger an edit war on Wikipedia, let alone on any serious discussion forum in- or outside the internets (a "common sense proof" would draw nothing but derision — note that in Kirottu's video, that argument is used in a joking manner). This is 2015, it's almost mandatory to have a plethora of links and data to back one's soapboxing. If you want to take her at face value, it's your prerogative, but if you insist on accepting a laughably low standard of rigour from speakers you are ideologically close to while railing against "progressives" and "radical left-wingers" at every chance you get, be ready to draw flak. We all have our biases, hmm? As an aside, she's also a pretty terrible narrator. I thought only numbers theory lecturers could get away with being so bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbbFiTMn_ok http://www.inquisitr.com/2146081/ronald-moon-jr-got-beaten-up-for-trying-to-make-a-community-center-in-his-cincinnati-neighborhood-but-the-internet-rallies-to-his-support/ I don't know, I thought it was pretty cool. Yeah, yeah, I know he's hardly the only one risking bodily harm to help people, but still. Thought about making a new thread but I figured it fits perfectly here. Happy thought quota reached. Now back to your regularly scheduled doomsaying... (there's a fundraiser involved, apologies in advance if this goes against board policy on solicitation)

Reporting for duty! Yeah, one shouldn't expect corporations to do the right thing, because... reasons. Regardless, I wouldn't hold my breath for legislation to fix this mess, because legislation is literally bought and paid for by the corporations it benefits. So I can't expect corporations not to **** me over, and I can't expect the Man not to **** me over. Hmm, that's nice. But not to worry, I'm sure that putting a piece of paper in a plastic box next year will totally change things this time. *thinks of puppies and sunshines* Putting brass in that steel container will.. (Not really, but that one liner feels natural at this moment) Damn son, you got that from a Clint Eastwood flick?

Reporting for duty! Yeah, one shouldn't expect corporations to do the right thing, because... reasons. Regardless, I wouldn't hold my breath for legislation to fix this mess, because legislation is literally bought and paid for by the corporations it benefits. So I can't expect corporations not to **** me over, and I can't expect the Man not to **** me over. Hmm, that's nice. But not to worry, I'm sure that putting a piece of paper in a plastic box next year will totally change things this time. *thinks of puppies and sunshines*

Yep. I posted something similar a while ago, where a London School of Economics professor dirty hippie discussed a facet of this. I'm still skeptical that we will see a comprehensive reorganization of the economy to accomodate for increased automatization and disappearance of human manual labor. Ideally, work hours would be reduced in average or altogether eliminated without an actual loss of purchasing power, which would supposedly increase demand for the kind of services that non-sentient machines cannot provide. In practice, we have a reduction or altogether elimination of work hours with a corresponding reduction in purchasing power (minijobs and unemployment), and an increase in the ratio of non-jobs dedicated to the non-economy to actual productive jobs. For example, machines are really good at counting, and despite high-speed trading accounting for roughly half of all equity transactions, the financial sector keeps on growing. You wonder whether it's possible for a society to function with a 25% unemployment rate. The answer is a very emphatic yes. Spain currently is close to that figure (~23%) and what this means is simply the destruction of the traditional middle class that works for a living — we currently have an underclass that live off of a conditional government subsidy that is equivalent to roughly two thirds of minimum wage, and an upper class that has has grown by 27% since the 2008 crisis began. I'm not even getting into what this means for social stability, ecological sustainability, freedom and justice, and some other stuff nobody seems to give a toss about. As far as I know, no credible effort is being made to correct any of these problems. As Rosbjerg pointed out, some "new" political movements are popping up that at least talk about these issues, but they propose the same old solutions with a strong statist slant that haven't worked as advertised in the past and are doubtful to work in the present where nation-states are very much depowered in the context of global economics. Of course, anyone who talks about global economic imbalances and financial meltdown is likely to be branded a crank, despite the fact that we're still recovering from the last crash, and urgent suggestions are immediately made to cease pondering these things and to think about ponies and pretty flowers instead. Good luck.

And this right here has the potential to be the deal breaker. The usual comment about Beth games is "but they are great with mods!". Without, not so much. I'll wait and see, of course. I got my money's worth out of FO3, after all.

**** yes. Beginning my day with a Flawless Victory is the universe's way of assuring me that nothing can go wrong.

^ Hahaha, no matter how many variations of that joke I see, it just never gets old. edit: to contribute something to the thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ftVPk-WZw still better than EP 7. :smug:

Now I'm depressed because I remembered that they aren't making Beavis & Butthead anymore. Thanks pal. I can't watch that and not be immediately reminded that the corporation that built some of my fondest childhood memories has become a soulless capitalist leviathan that will stop at nothing to make a buck. Thanks pal. It's like you guys are doing it on purpose! ( )

It would depend on the specifics of the weapon (which understandably are most likely top-secret), but a Faraday cage can in principle protect electronics from EMPs. Since it's not nuke-scale EMP, and is supposed to be precise enough to target data centers, protection is logistically feasible and may become a standard for critical locations. I'm not sure how it would affect other possible future technologies such as photonic computers, either. According to some scientists, current silicon-based computers are expected to reach their physical limits in terms of power at some point after 2020.

Wow, you really are obtuse, aren't you? Is this due to your missing chromosomes or were you dropped on your head at birth? To what degree does it get you disability benefits? Again: I did not bring up the issue of doom and gloom in your precious puppies and sunshines thread, that was someone else. Hell, I even liked GD's post about simple things that make him happy, despite disagreeing with his last line. You smugly posed a question, on the laughably incorrect supposition that since you go through life smiling like you're both titular characters in Dumb & Dumber, nobody has any real problems. I responded providing precise examples that prove how disconnected from reality you are, and you cherry picked the answers and became fixated on "the price of fish". This sort of idiocy has a name, that I'm sure the eminent Internet Psychiatrist Hiro Protagonist is familiar with: anal retentiveness. Basically your posts in this thread except for the OP can be summed up as "Waah waaah mommy the meanies stole my thread" and "lol u mad?". Forget what I said about going back to school, it just wouldn't be fair to slow down class progress enough to accomodate for the very special kind of attention you require. I know you're testing me, but I'd never cheat on you!