Good parabola at the start (is it parabola.. anyway...) how to describe the levels of privacy. But the point here is, we have the right to choose what is private to us and what is not. That task is not up to security departments, it is done individually. Yes, it is a security risk. No shit sherlock. So are a lot of old social rules that we have honed during the millenias, spanning from cavemen to nerd. There would be NO crime if we would have NO privacy. And still, after tens of thousands of years, we have seemed it appropriate to allow more freedoms with small disadvantage but with a tremendous improvements on personal well being. Not to mention creativity, which often demands privacy. If you knew that someone is watching every draw of line you make, the picture turns out to be average at best, not exciting, dull, predictable. Because at those private moments, we find our selves free to take creative risks. Innovate without reprimand. You take that feeling of freedom away, force people to "behave" when at their own homes and we will live in a stagnated, boring world. We have to be allowed to break away from societal norms when private. The fact is that internet is a tool too for that inner self study.. We ask it daily questions we wont ask from our spouses. It is linked to the most private form of self. And thus, it has tremendous effect on our wellbeing and society as a whole.

I got recommended to read Atlas Shrugged by a friend of mine. That friend turned out to be a beret-wearing high-art-snob ponce, but i didn't know it at the time.

I managed to finish it and whilst there were reasonable ideas in there that i think in some way we have paralleled in reality - whilst i find that most of her characters are sociopathic to some degree, i can very much sympathise with the idea of being led by the least capable in society who abuse the system of power that they shape and build to implement bad ideas badly.

I like the idea that the world would grind to a halt if the morons in charge did not have the ordinary, hard working people to keep things afloat... but that's about all i like about it. And i think we genuinely can see it happening in the world today in a less exaggerated fashion - the recent recession clearly demonstrated that the people in charge of money and property do not understand what they're doing and ignored the warning signs for years. Furthermore, our feckless leaders have done nothing about it, property bubbles continue to grow and bonuses for the upper echelons are still outlandish whilst the lower workers are struggling to get by in the recession. And then the expenses scandal of the MPs in Britain literally stealing money from the public pocket to have their moats cleaned (that actually happened) and such. Yesterday the watchdog looking into the scandal has decided that the investigation will take place in secret from the public and punishments will also be kept secret. Et voila, two clear instances of those in charge having no clue and no moral compass swept under the rug and forgotten about.

In conclusion, Ayn Rand is a very small minded individual who thinks that everyone in the world must think like she does. That is the only reason i can think of for the approximately 30 pages i read about the female lead character's personal sexual obsession with being taken aggressively by a man and made to feel defiled and used, and how all women feel that and all men wish to dominate and use a woman in turn.

But i think she got it spot on about how being led by those least capable morons will bring the world to its knees, and it won't require the hard workers to quit either. It just requires them to let it happen. And there's no little paradise to run off to, there's just Earth.

@artician - that's exactly it. The characters have no human empathy in Atlas Shrugged. I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing for most people - all conservative or all liberal. Why not the best of both? It IS possible to be ethical, productive and innovative at the same time.

Nope...It's going to be easier than Dark Souls. Hidetaka Miyazaki has already stated as much. I'll play it. I've been playing video games since 'Pong'. I'm not "over it" yet. The game looks gorgeous.

If you want something more innovative, look into 'No Man's Sky'

...and don't forget that publishers often don't make innovative games because consumers don't buy them. You have to sell quite a few copies these days to pay for the production of a game. If you make something truly unique or innovative you often fall into a niche and lose money as a result. This means that change often happens gradually. Maybe you should take a break from gaming if you don't enjoy it.

So, basically, the next Dark Souls.

Which is fine, because I enjoy those games. Character and enemy designs look great, but at this point they're just regurgitating a formula. It looks foreboding, it's probably going to be brutally difficult, there will be some interesting monsters and probably a convoluted, western-style dark fantasy plot. That's the same thing that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 offered to a 'T'.
Someone no one else has ever agreed with me from the game industry is personal reinvention, and I wish consumer demand was more fickle for less repetitive offerings.
I *might* play this, but after 3 games, multiple playthroughs of each (because I loved them so much), I'm pretty much over it. Plus, fuck next gen consoles, I could have gotten another 5 years from the current crop. I expect truly talented developers to innovate when they're lauded for their perceived innovation from past successes. Tackling an entirely different genre in the same way the *Souls games were throwbacks to more unforgiving times, or taking the extremes from the previous entries to completely unexpected heights.
There are so many fucking vectors of unexplored progress in the medium that it never surprises me when industry reports year-over-year declines for half a decade, and infuriates me to the point that I wish it would all just fucking die already, wipe out the failures, and rebuild it with this millenniums version of the NES. It's not even about finding "completely new, unexplored methods of interactive media", because you can continue to build on the genre's that exist with a 4-decade-old toolbox that an entire industry only recognizes the most recently opened drawer of.

Completely irrelevant to the topic, but I had to laugh when I heard "if I didn't have to be in prison tonight, I'd be arrested".

On topic... unchecked capitalism is a terrible system, so is unchecked socialism.

There's nothing wrong with private enterprise and innovation, but they should be used for what they're good at, i.e. anything where the primary motivator is profit.

Capitalism by definition is terrible at anything where the primary motive is something other than profit (or at the very least, where profit shouldn't be the primary motivator) such as healthcare, prisons, etc.

Ultimately the question is what do we want out of life as a society? I'd argue that's quality of life. We should the levers of capitialism and socialism to achieve that. Right now, we're way too capitalist.

I can't remember who said it, but I've always liked this quote:

Capitalism is a great engine for innovation, but it's a shitty way to have a just and fair society. (after googling, it seems lots of people have said something to that effect)

Capitalism is great, but it needs to be controlled.

I will disagree though. Voters have the power to make some huge changes The corporate world may have a huge influence over Gov't, but it's dependent on the populace not giving a damn and looking the other way.

There will come a point where people are pushed to a tipping point, then things will happen. Hopefully in a peaceful fashion. One way or another it will happen, because as Hedges already pointed out. Truly unrestricted capitalism will destroy itself.

The oligarchy is trying to create a modernized system of serfdom and perpetual debt. Give people the illusion of freedom, but they're really not. Every major life decision in the modern world usually involves going into significant debt and spending decades digging yourself out.

Want a good education? Gonna have to go into massive debt. Even if you're successful, it will take a long time to get out.

Want to get married? society says you have to have an expensive ring and go into debt for probably 30 years to get a house for your family. And you wonder why more and more people are flipping the bird to the "traditional family unit"

Want a decent car just so you can get around? Even more debt

Hope you never get divorced, because that's still more debt.

Hope you're lucky enough to not have a major accident or illness either. Yep, more debt.

I know a lot of people are able to successfully navigate these things and still come out ahead, but they're quickly becoming the exception, and not the rule. And it's often a question of luck, not of skill or smarts or being chosen of your preferred deity. blind stupid luck. So those that make it have no cause to look down their nose at those who didn't make it.

There is a reason feudalism system got thrown out. It's just been repackaged to fool people. When enough people realize it, it will be thrown off again.

*quality Wow ... obviously the world would benefit from more forward thinking doers like this innovative and inspiring young man. Bravo!

It's true that free markets have enabled innovation over the past two centuries since the adoption of capitalistish models by most of the world.

The issue I see the interviewer struggling with, and Hedges not really getting across to him, is that the free market run amok has led a perversion of capitalism. This perversion, however you wish to describe it (corpratism?/neo-feutilism?) has created ultra-wealthy elite who are able to impose vast influence over society, like princes and kings before the Storming of the Bastille.

Hedges is warning that revolution will may be the only option left if the present shift in power continues on it's present path unchecked. (I do not see such upheaval as possible at the present time---though I don't dispute that the seeds are there. Revolutions are often preceded by disaster or famine.)

The interviewer seemed more interested in making his own points and arguing with Hedges rather than trying to help Hedges to draw out and refine his main point into a digestible thesis.

It's always hilarious to me how the 'rich' convince themselves that they made their wealth in a vacuum once they've made the wealth, but on the way up they're right there with their hand out any time there's a possibility of getting 'something for nothing' (like tax breaks amounting to 0% tax, exemptions from regulations at taxpayer expense, use of public services they don't pay for, public education for their workforce, etc....).
In America at least, business all stand on the shoulders of both industry/innovation that came before them AND (crumbling, ignored) infrastructure paid for and 'maintained' by taxpayers (taxpayers that didn't use every possible method to avoid paying their share...and the obligation shirking industries' share as well). Zuckerberg and Gates are two fine examples of this, both their companies are built on an industry created by the government/taxpayers...computers...and also of people profiting exorbitantly from other people's work product while the actual 'creators' are salaried lower middle class at best that don't own their own creations.

I'm curious just how he thinks competitors would be fighting it out, if not by innovating and improving products and services...unless, in his mind, they hire armies to do battle.

He's just an apologist for the corporatists. Not a great surprise, since that's how he made and makes his money.

So I wasn't just imagining things when I mentally replaced the 'L' in Thiel's name with an 'F'. The article really covers this subject better than the video and is worth the read even if I don't agree with all of his conclusions. For instance he asserts that competition hampers innovation because competitors are too busy fighting it out to take the time to do so, when innovation will be what differentiates you from the competition in the first place. He reasons that monopolies have the time and money to plot out the future, but without competition why bother when you can just continue to profit from the status quo. He seems to assume that monopolies will act as beneficent rulers and not greedy tyrants, even though recent events involving ISP monopolies would suggest the latter.

I don't usually like Colbert's interviews, but this is a good one. The police as a part of the community - how sad it's now an innovative concept.

I don't think she/he's trolling - i think she/he's an idiot. It reminds me of that picture i see around - "hurrr durrr i'm a idiot!" "go away idiot" "joke's on them, it was all a ruse!" ... In other words, if it looks and sounds like an idiot then it's an idiot, even if it's intentionally being one.

The only possible explanation is that she/he is some kind of innovative anti-troll that states the best possible argument for the worst possible opinion - worst as rated on a scale of how damaging and unfair it is to society; religion, the environment, equality - all videos that she/he has been spouting the most abominable shite about within the last week alone! She/He sets up the perfect bad argument for someone to come along and blow it up point by point, all of which she/he pointedly ignores. Everyone who reads past comes to understand the argument, see that one side makes sense and is rational, and comes to the correct conclusion.

In which case i hope you'll all join me in a great big thanks for her/his contributions to highlighting the plight of the boot-trodden minorities. You never fail to set up the perfect knock down for anyone who has any kind of reasoned understanding of anything you post about. Back in the 00s here in England we all thought Dom Joly and Sascha Baron Cohen were crazy fools, but they were 10 years ahead of their time. And now Zach Galifianakis is standing on the shoulders of giants. Great work, @lantern53.

Yeah, that's valid because I always feel assaulted by my fan and boy, I can't tell you how many times a day I accidentally jam my fingers into my fan. Thank goodness for this innovation!

"It will wreck our economy"

Sound familiar? Any AGW denier ever uttered that line and when asked "how", they have no clue?

Let me introduce you the institution behind it: Freedom Partners. Check who is behind that. Follow the money, who has most to lose. Then try to think a tactic that will keep you floating in dollars the longest. Yup, it is to teach all your followers to keep repeating the same catchphrase..

When even there has been a great communal investment in better technology infrastructure, the economy has had a tremendous boost. Railroad, electric grid, internet. Renewable energy is just a another on that line. Burning something, destroying it to get energy is finite resource. Renewables are basically infinite. Person who sells firewood is not going to like your electric heater even when it means half of the village will not die next winter. Company that sells oil will not like infinite energy source they are not in control of even if it means half of us die. They and their kids won't be affected but you will.

"It will wreck our economy"

If something, it will boost your economy. Greatly. It is already in motion in most EU countries, Germany is at 33%. Norway is at 99%. Where i live, in Finland, we are at 25% even when half of the year most of our hydro-electric is not functional. Have ANY of those countries seen any negative, economy destroying effects? No? They all have actually benefited from them? No way, bloody communists propaganda.. Lies lies, lallaalaaa, i believe in Koch.

"It will wreck our economy"

The people behind that line of words has been behind every major block in the way of creating green energy. The will raise the cost so high it is impossible, they will lobby until it's too complicated to change anything. THEY are wrecking your economy. THEY are stopping innovation. THEY are wrecking our whole mfcking planet and you are worried about your electric bill or not having two hot showers per day.

"I have nothing against green energy but i'm not going to do anything for it."

That is you.