A 21st century twist on the sharecropping paradigm.

turns out greed isnt a conspiracy ... just a natural paradigm

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/10/24/1542240/the-147-corporations-controlling-most-of-the-global-economy

the more you know!

Love the idiot who starts giving Alec a definition of what the federal reserve is, right after he's clearly demonstrated he knows exactly what the fed is. And the guy doesn't stop after Alec tells him once "I know what the fed is, what I don't know is how shutting down the fed affects capital markets in this country" ... the annoying idiot with a mic just goes back into his goddamn narcissistic routine of explaining it. I think it's the same guy at the end trying to cram his worldview into a new binary paradigm (asking him to "endorse ending the fed" even though Alec has just stated three times he doesn't see why it'd be a good thing... asking him to confirm support for Ron Paul, which is kind of an obnoxious question if you're talking to Alec Baldwin). FUCK THAT GUY.

I'm sympathetic but I think many many of the actual OWS protesters are, at best, little wannabe dictators. And: Grassroots movement, MY DICK.

if your diet is exploitative and oppressive and a huge source of environmental degradation and directly supportive of an evil corporate poison paradigm, then yes, yes it is.

What I do for a living and what I do in my bedroom are polar opposites...

>> ^AgentSmith:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.

...says "MonkeySpank", lol! Really, thank you for the insight, but the association between your well informed comment and your avatar is what did it for me.
This is what led me to believe that E = MC² --LoudBelcher78

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.


...says "MonkeySpank", lol! Really, thank you for the insight, but the association between your well informed comment and your avatar is what did it for me.

This is what led me to believe that E = MC² --LoudBelcher78

I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.

You will have to let me know the details of your voyage if you take it! They don't really exist here in the states, so all my information is hearsay.

In reply to this comment by dag:
My interest in the Pirate Party has been growing too. I was following what happened in the recent German elections. I want to get involved and I've been looking into joining my local Australian chapter. Even if they can get some traction for copyright, patent reform and fair use - it would be a great thing.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I remember you had a blog about government disappearing for web-like, open source community stuff (I might be mis-remembering the exact situation). But the PIRATE PARTY seems to be pushing this idea of the best of open source methodology with "API" for dealing with government, and government dealing with itself. Seemed pretty interesting, though, I haven't done any reading to see how different it would really be from a system of "laws" vs "API", perhaps just a paradigm shift in the way we think of governments. I like the shift of thinking of government as a tool instead of us as the pawns of its whimsy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

My interest in the Pirate Party has been growing too. I was following what happened in the recent German elections. I want to get involved and I've been looking into joining my local Australian chapter. Even if they can get some traction for copyright, patent reform and fair use - it would be a great thing.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I remember you had a blog about government disappearing for web-like, open source community stuff (I might be mis-remembering the exact situation). But the PIRATE PARTY seems to be pushing this idea of the best of open source methodology with "API" for dealing with government, and government dealing with itself. Seemed pretty interesting, though, I haven't done any reading to see how different it would really be from a system of "laws" vs "API", perhaps just a paradigm shift in the way we think of governments. I like the shift of thinking of government as a tool instead of us as the pawns of its whimsy.

I remember you had a blog about government disappearing for web-like, open source community stuff (I might be mis-remembering the exact situation). But the PIRATE PARTY seems to be pushing this idea of the best of open source methodology with "API" for dealing with government, and government dealing with itself. Seemed pretty interesting, though, I haven't done any reading to see how different it would really be from a system of "laws" vs "API", perhaps just a paradigm shift in the way we think of governments. I like the shift of thinking of government as a tool instead of us as the pawns of its whimsy.

>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^heropsycho:

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.

You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?

But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.

I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."

Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

Really? Now how am I going to show my individuality among my peers by conforming to the paradigm of acceptable computing implements?

@chilaxe I like how you ignore the central point I make, and just respond to random phrases out of context.

For the most part, I think you're wanting to focus on specifics largely based on the extant paradigm, while I'm making more of a statement about a desired ideal that would require a paradigm shift.

I don't deny the reality that education requires resources, and that it will need some mechanism of economic support, I'm just saying I don't think education should be denied to students who for whatever reason don't have the money to pay for it.

I also don't see why education should always be looked at as an economic investment. I happen to excel in subjects that apply well to a certain class of professional type of work, but I am interested in all sorts of topics for which I have no practical use.

I guess I am confused about your focus on people getting "pointless" degrees. I guess on one level my response is "pointless to whom?" Pointless to employers, or pointless to the person who wanted to study the topic? Why should employers get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?

On another level, like I said before, I our educational system could stand to be a bit more paternalistic in shepherding adolescents through the transition from a purely academic experience into a career path that suits some mix of their preferences and talents. But I guess I feel like schools (of all types) are largely interested in exposing children to purely academic pursuits, while justifying it in some vague sense as some form of mundane job training.

But I've never taken, nor seen offered, a college course I thought was "pointless". Certainly there's stuff I'm not interested in, stuff that would be remedial, and plenty that doesn't pose any obvious use in the job market (philosophy comes to mind), but in terms of helping people realize their full potential as human beings, all of it seems quite worthwhile.