search results matching tag: Disconnection

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (60)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (2)     Comments (368)   

eric3579 (Member Profile)

radx says...

The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

The first one is a rather short conversation that includes all the goodies: the chemical attack in Syria was, once again, not a chemical attack by Syrian forces -- they hit a stash, just like both the Syrians and the Russians claimed at the time.

The piece also details that US forces are keenly aware that it was not a chemical attack, that the response (Tomahawk strike on Syrian airfield) was equally ridiculous and dangerous, and that the bellicose stance of the US vis-a-vis Russia is complete lunacy.

The longer piece by Hersh himself and displays in great details the disconnect between Trump and his military advisers, as well as between the upper echelons of the military and the troops in the region.

Just a snippet about the strike itself:

A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

And the media went along for the ride, for the umpteenth time. Remember Brian Williams fawning about the beauty of the weapons?

At some point, this volatile mixture of warmongering and McCarthyism is going to start WW3, and they'll blame it on the Russians.

I think this quote illustrates the issue quite nicely:
“Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

Professor explains the most important problem in finance

oritteropo says...

Yes, he is. He is saying that there is (usually) a disconnect between the people running the company and the owners and that this leads to outcomes that are not ideal for the owners.

One example would be the CEO who ensures a short-term share price gain just in time to sell his own shares, called pump and dump, even if the result is a disaster shortly thereafter. There are many other examples of CEO decisions that lead to disaster for the company and a big fat payout for the CEO.

In fact much of the current fixation on short-term planning is contrary to both the interests and desires of the shareholders.

TheFreak said:

Is he saying that the companies aren't doing enough to provide returns to the investors?

Because as an employee of these same companies...that's not my experience.

Shear Pins are Smart (They're Mechanical Fuses)

RFlagg says...

I'm still at a loss on why he's waiting for a ride? Disconnect the tractor from the equipment, drive the tractor back... Heck, I'd think even once the PTO shaft was disconnected, he'd still be able to tow the equipment back using the tractor.

EDIT: Of course, I'd guess it would take a few tools to disconnect the equipment so it could drive back, or tow... so perhaps that's what he's waiting for, tools, not really just a ride, and then tow the tractor and equipment back...

I do not support a livable wage

RFlagg says...

I think Republicans have a disconnect on the word "Build" when they talk about Building an Economy. You build from the ground up. You don't build an attic, then put up walls, then floors, and finish with a solid foundation. It starts with that solid foundation. In an economy like ours that rely on people spending, you need people to be able to spend. That means the people at the low end that do more spending than those on the top (per dollar earned anyhow), need to be the ones having disposable income. If they spend 100% or more of their income on living essentials, they can't spend to move the economy. When they finally do spend, then the retailer can hire more people (at least until automation starts taking over low end jobs, which is frighteningly soon), which means more people with income to spend, which feeds into the cycle. Eventually transportation starts picking up, which feeds more money into the economy. Eventually production has to keep up. By punishing those at the bottom, is shooting oneself in the foot. Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, though Walmart makes enough to pay everyone a living wage, give them benefits, and still be profitable, but the people conservatives (Christians yet, who Jesus said to help the needy and the poor, and how the rich were going to hell) are mad at, are the poor people working there, rather than the rich owners/operators for not paying living wages. So conservatives seek to punish those workers by taking away something that allows them to spend money on things that actually move the economy forward. 3 people buying a $25k Chevy will do far more for the economy than that rich ass hole who just put $70lk on a Mercedes or Lexus. Their collection of TVs, video game systems and the like, do far more for the economy than that rich guy's super high def, ultra large screen TV. It's such a fucked up world in conservative land... I'm still at a loss how I used to be a part of it.

It gets to what @enoch was talking about above. There are some really good business owners, then there are the winny bitches who say they can't pay living wages... One of the jobs I worked at, complained in a letter to all of us that if Obama won (first time around) he'd have to fire over 350 people if he put his tax plans in place. Come that February, Obama isn't even in office yet, and he fires 350+ people. Then tells the rest of us that the company couldn't afford to give us raises... of course the company at the same time, went out and purchases a private jet for him, and then he purchased a second mansion in the local, Jack Nicklaus, signature golf course gated community... and he already owned the second largest mansion there. But oh, the conservatives are so support him over his employees, and think poorly of his employees for needing help living day to day, and praise him for his business acumen. The problem with conservatives is they LOVE greed. Love it. They worship it more than they do the Christ they say they serve. They just don't want their money going to help others, they give plenty at their church, they give time at the soup kitchen, but God forbid that their taxes help those working for the asshole business owners who chose greed over their employees. Pay your employees living wages, and no, you won't have it on easy street like Enoch's nephew, but I can guarantee you that his son is the far better human... and that's not to say the nephew doesn't give, he very well may, but he chose to take that money for himself than to pay his employees well. It doesn't matter if he gives tons of it away, it was ill gotten, how much could it have helped his employees had he let them keep more of their labor? Sadly, that nephew seems to be the vast majority of businesses in the US.

Finally, Sean Spicer's Credibility Being Questioned Openly

00Scud00 says...

I feel a bit sorry for the poor bastard in a way, I mean look what he has to work with. A President who's a pathological liar and is so disconnected from reality that if he started hallucinating it might be an improvement. A sane person would have simply resigned from his position.
I think it would be awesome if someday the Press all decided to stop showing up to these things, the ultimate vote of no confidence, every thing you say is so devoid of meaning that we no longer need to hear it.

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

newtboy says...

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

bcglorf said:

"They murder over tiny details".

Question, who is 'they'? The 'Christians' who ran the crusades? The protestant 'Christians' bombing the English Catholic 'Christians'? The Catholic 'Christians' cleansing the protestant heretics? The current pope of the Catholic church? The folks in your neighbourhood that attend a church sometimes? The people that check off 'christian' on the census?

Your entire exposition gives the distinct impression that you include everyone in the whole group as 'they' and liken them not only the the very worst in the group, you even insist that the worst aren't quite bad enough(Westboro), are as bad as what YOU define their beliefs to be.

Is some lengthy theological dissertation refuting your interpretation of the bible required evidence before you'll accept that calling all christian's murders is unfair? I'm sorry I won't present you that kind of evidence in thread, but I'm quite confident you are as capable as me to quickly google for the likely hundreds of hefty books already dedicated to exactly that...

Digital Hygiene: How We Might've Fucked Our Attention Spans

Digitalfiend says...

I was born in the late 70s and had the fortune to experience the early days of personal computing and the internet via BBSes. The biggest issue I've personally experienced with the modern internet is the ease at which you can get side-tracked by deep links. I've lost count of the number of times I've started researching something work-related in the evening only to end up linking through two or three related articles and ending up on a YouTube video about the latest game trailer or whatever.

I've also noticed that my reading habits have changed. Instead of reading articles in their entirety, I will, at times, read a few sentences to get the gist then scan ahead to continue reading. I never used to do this but it is something I've caught myself doing with greater frequency over the past couple of decades. This has tripped me up a few times where I've had to go back and read the information again. I wonder if children that have grown up with the modern internet and its web of distractions (pun intended) are even worse off.

Maybe our brains are trying to adapt to a new way of gathering and processing so much disconnected information (e.g. one minute you're reading about a physics algorithm the next minute about screaming space goats). Perhaps it is a way to contain information overload and only retain what is useful?

The internet is an AMAZING invention and something everyone should have access to and be taught how to use effectively. As was mentioned above, you can pretty much teach yourself anything using the internet. The challenge is staying focused and sifting through all the ads, fluff articles, and random garbage that you get bombarded with every time you browse a website.

Why I Left the Left

newtboy says...

No, the teabaggers invaded the republicans and took them mostly far right but really deep into insanity, where they aren't right or left, just angry and lashing out while accepting no responsibility for their parts in problems. They are anti tax, but pro spending, anti big government unless it's a government project they support, then big government is what's needed every time, anti regulation unless it's a regulation against something they dislike (like abortion, relaxing drug policies, marriage, equal protection under the law, etc).

Every teabagger I've met (and there are many) has been at least as if not more racist, homophobic, and bible thumping than the media makes the 'party' out to be, including (sadly) many of my own family members. They are not the fringe, they are the base, you're either lying or don't know your own group. They are also just as dumb and/or stupid as they are portrayed, my favorite slogan is "keep your government hands off my medicare", clearly the woman carrying it was so dumb she didn't understand that medicare is a government program, just like 1/2 of you don't know that the ACA is Obamacare, but HATED Obamacare with a passion while insisting the ACA is great. Not racist? Then what? Just brain dead? It's this disconnect from reality and sanity that made me run from them as soon as it was clear where the party was going....it didn't start out like it ended up, it started out more like OWS.

Haven't you been the one saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with SJWs recently....repeatedly and smugly? Yes...that was you.

*facepalm

worm said:

So the Republicans left the Conservatives and took the party to the left, meanwhile the SJW's took the Democratic party and drug it out to the WAY WAY out to the left?

In any effect, I agree with him in just about every way, and welcome him to come join us "tea baggers". We aren't nearly as racist, homophobic, or bible thumping as the media makes us out to be.

Not saying those people don't exist, but they are a really, really small fringe, and putting their identity on a whole group of people is like saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with BLM or OWS groups.

In Movies, Why is There a Dial Tone After Someone Hangs Up?

Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Internet is Good for Society

ChaosEngine says...

*doublepromote

Fucking finally. I am so tired of obnoxious wankers whinging about smart phones disconnecting us from each other.

Know what I did on public transport prior to having a smartphone? I read a book and listened to my Walkman (yes, I'm that old).

I didn't talk to strangers on a bus, because most people are fucking boring. And they undoubtedly think I'm boring too.

We were previously forced to talk to neighbours, colleagues, etc because they were the only people we came in contact with, but these days instead of communicating with people who share our physical space, we communicate with people who share our interests.

Noam Chomsky on Trump and neo fascist similarities

shagen454 says...

I find it... grotesque, that many of the "disenfranchised" men voted for Trump, even though he is only going to line the pockets of the few. That is what Trump does, he is only in this for himself and/or people like him; he is a cult of personality & a greedy businessman completely disconnected from reality. How he actually connected with such a vast ocean of morons is mind-blowing - 1) Fuck the two party system 2) Fuck the Electoral College.

I like that Chomsky points out that these people don't like being talked down to. But, if they would have opened their fucking ears - they would have heard Sanders talking about the MIDDLE CLASS, over and over and over again. Sanders actually wanted to do something for the majority ---- along with these IDIOTS --- that voted in Trump. Whom, yes, is going to get them temporary coal jobs and natural gas jobs...

Is that what they really want? Some shitty job that will ruin the environment so badly that their children will be living in a glass bubble with Amazon teleporting breakfast, lunch & dinner as they look out across black skies, thinking the images of the world they see on Google are a fantasy?

Who do you blame for the election results? (User Poll by newtboy)

Jinx says...

I dunno if it is right to blame liberals when a campaign uses fear and hate to the degree Trump did. The Dems failed to address it, but it was not they alone that set the fires, and it certainly wasn't the left fanning them. How do you address bigotry? Must we forever defend the foundations of equality from this...rot?

Trump demonstrated a complete disdain for the truth. The media failed to call him on it - fucking fallacy of the middle-ground bullshit. But then idk if that would have made a difference. Sad that really.

Two party system doesn't help. I think this increasing polarisation is partly due to that, partly due, ironically, to the internet. It was meant to connect us to everybody! In reality it only really connects us to the people we agree with. I also think it is interesting how different cities and the country votes. Its the same deal here in the UK. London is like a different country, culturally and politically, to the rest of England. I imagine the big cities in America have a similar disconnect from the country around them.

I hope this will be a lesson. But I already begin to doubt it. Clinton blaming her loss on the email revelations. Lady, maybe don't have so many skeletons hiding away eh? I know you didn't do anything illegal, but nor did your Husband and he still lost the White House because of it.

/rant

I think I'd like to change my vote to "no one - the election was fair". Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite.

New Rule: America Rules, Trump Drools

coolhund says...

You can just not vote then because it wont change anything.

I just dont get how some of you Americans are so afraid of Trump. Yeah, hes a loudmouth, but thats about it. He talks a lot of crap, but a lot is lied about or blown up by the media. He didnt show yet what he can do. Hillary on the other hand has shown very well what kind of sick despicable stuff she does and how much she cares about it getting public: She just lies more and puts up her creepy disconnected grin when confronted with it.

I think it shows perfectly whats wrong with the USA. Words mean more to you than actions. Fits perfectly into the Americans hypocrite stereotype. You have been lied to so much that you adapted it yourselves and thus hiding behind political correctness gives some kind of protection from the truth that has been going on for decades, not only in your own country, but especially the shit you did in other countries, killing millions of people, causing the mess we are in today. And here comes a guy who doesnt give a shit about it and just speaks his mind. Must be scary for a lot of people, who have been lying to themselves and others for their whole lives, I guess.

MilkmanDan said:

Hmm. I agree that Trump is an incompetent egotistical blowhard, who drums up support by drastically overstating America's problems. America doesn't *need* drastic change.

...BUT, American government, particularly at the national level in Washington really is a complete trainwreck that *does* need drastic change. Both of our disgusting parties hold plenty of blame for that.

I think that the short-term damage that a Trump presidency would cause would be mitigated pretty well by the separation of powers, one of the few elements of our government that does function pretty well. And I feel like it is possible that a long-term benefit could be that Republican voters would get a hard-to-ignore lesson that the "ideals" that are spouted by their party leadership don't work. George W Bush was the best thing to happen for the Democrat party in a long time; Trump could finish the party off and let something better replace it.

Hillary is definitely more competent. In the short term, the country would definitely be better off with her at the helm than Trump. But, I don't see any long-term benefits to electing her.

Republicans would have a prime and familiar scapegoat. The legislative branch ground to a standstill with Obama in office, I think it will/would be worse with Hillary. That might actually be a good thing; it could limit the damage that they can do -- and the consequences of a shitty legislative branch are worse than a shitty president, I think.

And the Democrat party, which had a golden fucking opportunity to lead by example and actually do some exciting GOOD things with government to win voters over, instead did every dirty and questionable thing they could to guarantee that Hillary "I am the establishment" Clinton got their nomination.


Neither side deserves to win, and in fact both sides deserve to lose. I'll be voting 3rd party; not that it will accomplish anything.

Democrats, you could have had my vote if you had selected literally anybody other than Hillary. Hell, I'd probably even have voted for Hillary over Trump if she had beat Bernie fair and square without resorting to all the shady stuff (she probably would have won even without that shit).

Republicans, almost the same goes for you -- I'd pretty happily have voted for anybody other than Trump running against Hillary. Well, maybe not creepy-as-fuck Ted Cruz or some other batshit crazy option like Sarah Palin; but pretty much any of the others.

Too late now though.

Colbert has a license to sell hot dogs

Jim Jefferies on Bill Cosby and Rape Jokes

bareboards2 says...

@Chairman_woo

Sorry to have misunderstood. Glad to know that your words, which seemed pretty straightforward, don't mean what I thought they meant.

I'm not interested in explaining myself more than I have. Chaosengine gets it. Maybe Patton Oswalt gets it -- it's hard to say about him, though. Would he see the same disconnect from empathy and "kicking upwards" as I see? Can't know that without him chiming in. I do know he "gets it" generally.

I'm happy with letting it be at this point.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon