Reading the comments, my fear is that the outrage people are feeling is being framed in the wrong context. If we don't get the proper handle on this, all that outrage is going to fall on deaf ears. The people who are at the root of this are going to sense that we don't understand what's going on and dismiss all protests as irrelevant.

This is certainly not an issue of "evil government" or "power hungry institutions". This is an issue that involves people. People that are just like you and me. In fact, the ones who are responsible for the monster that's been created ARE people with the same motivations and rational capacity as you and I.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo

We are almost all guilty of making personal, selfish, idealistic and altruistic choices with blinders on to the larger impact of our choices. We all have a frustrating capacity for focusing on small picture goals and ignoring the big picture results. How many of us work for industries that have horrible environmental and social impact? Do you ever take into account the contribution you make to those disasters? Or are you comfortable in the belief that one person, "you", making fried chicken isn't responsible for the agregious level of child obesity in your country? Or you satisfied that building servers for BP doesn't in any way make you culpable for the massive negative impact of the industry as a whole?

We want to frame the ills of our societies in terms of villains which we can name...and even put a face on. But in the large chain of decisions that must be made and actions that must be taken, there is almost never one individual with the power to change the course of events. If one is ever identified, that person is almost certainly a scape goat, selected by popular consent for the very purpose of putting a face to the atrocities.

Governments and corporations are collections of individuals with the same strengths, weaknesses and short sightedness that we all posses.

So this problem arises from a troubling mentality that's very common in all orginzations. The tendency to view our individual actions and contributions as discrete from the larger result of the group. A small minded focus on results over impact.

This issue needs to be addressed in those terms, the troubling realization that good people with good intentions lost sight of the bigger picture. Only then will our protests ring true to the people involved.

And understand what's being discussed here also. This is not about personal invasion of privacy. That's certainly not how the architects of this see it. This is not the local police wire tapping "you". This is about a massive collection of data that could never be utilized effectively in those terms. It's complete historical data that exists for the purpose of analyzing as a whole, to learn the patterns that signify the actions of people who would do you harm. It is at the point such patterns are identified that investigation at an individual level, within that data, would begin. Perhaps that's why the people who created and manage this system don't feel it's a threat to you. Because they have no interest in you and didn't design the system for you...assuming you're not a terrorist.

But the danger that WE know is real, that they've lost sight of, is a matter of degrees. What happens when the definition of "enemy" begins to slip? What happens when, over time, all dissent is viewed as disruptive to the security of the country?

That's the big picture and that's the danger. Make sure you're protesting the right thing, if you want to be heard.

Yes those are good points, however one thing I've found in my studies (in part, sitting through an ethics class every week for the past 2 years) and elsewhere is that the Nazi regime is used as a way of objectively describing what 'bad' is and contemporary examples are overlooked. The main examples of this 'bad' are the way in which they conducted human research, the genocide they committed and the fear they instilled in their own population to be obedient through the SS, propaganda etc. Of course there are many other examples but those are a few of the main ones. The issue I always have sitting there listening to these lectures is that we are turning a blind eye to what is happening in the world today, it's easy to understand why if you do a bit of thinking on the matter, but most people don't seem to be able to do that, or they are simply too scared to talk about it for fear of reproach.

So to start with, I could name countless things that America (and other countries such as the UK/France etc) has done over the past 50 years that would make any rational person cringe if they hadn't known about it previously, however you can find those things out yourself with a little research on the internet, so there's no point listing them here (and I'm sure you know many of them already anyway). I think what is important is why these things don't seem as objectively bad to you as what's been done in the past. The answer would have to be pretty complex, however I think one reason is that things are not done as overtly these days. Wars are often waged by proxy, or people are led to 'buy in' to the excuses that are often given to begin wars, change leaderships etc.

I mean, it's easy to think, ,OK so the Nazi's sent around death squads to ensure people were obedient and that's objectively bad, but how does one quantify how immoral or unethical it is to watch/listen to and record almost the entire world's digital communication exchange between individuals and groups and then have the ability to send drones with bombs on them to kill anyone they feel like (with an unknown amount of collateral damage) without fear of reproach. No reproach being literal, the US has ~half the worlds military expenditure after all.

Now you might say, well nobody is knocking on my door making sure I'm pro-Obama and killing my entire family if I'm not, however I think the thing people often overlook, and it comes back to my previous two points. These things are happening in other countries and they are often by proxy, so to fully comprehend the level of immorality the US has sunk to, one first has to educate oneself on all these events, then one has to have enough empathy to care about the events and people involved, then one has to be educated enough in morals and ethics to be able to make some measurement as to how bad they are.

In my opinion it's a tall order to get most people to understand/learn all these things, most people are too worried about keeping their jobs, looking after their families or friends etc. Even those that meet all those requirements won't all agree that these things are bad, and even if they know they are bad, they are too fearful to speak their mind about it, or perhaps they have a specific agenda (i.e. someone like Jay Carney who is paid to spout BS for the president all day). There are lots of ways things can be justified, and lots of angles that can be taken in arguments.

So I guess my point is that despite the fact things are not as bad for you as they would have been under the Nazi regime, that doesn't mean millions of people in dozens of countries are not being oppressed in similar ways to what they would have been back then. the US doesn't precisely meet Emilio Gentile's definition of a Fascist state, however it meets many of the criteria, and I think if you look at the big picture (primarily what's happening in countries that the US wants resources from) you can see that @Fusionaut's remark wasn't too far off the mark.

I took a computer graphics class when I was going to college that talked about data visualization. Every time I see something on this topic, I am reminded about something the prof showed us in that class -- a visualization of troop losses during Napoleon's march on Russia in 1812-1813 by a French civil engineer named Minard.

Minard's chart gets a whole lot of dimensions and relevant variables displayed in a very simple, easy to read format. The "big picture" is evident at a glance, but details readily emerge when you look closer. It is a map, it shows number of soldiers and losses from cold/fighting, temperature data which contributed to those losses, etc.

I think that using CG including video and animation to expand on the ways that we visualize data is very interesting and exciting, but on the other hand depth and detail of relevant data is sometimes most impressive when it comes in a very simple package, like Minard's map.

Pretty neat stuff!

Something that I don't get about Tywin (book or movie version):

He's cold, logical, practical, intelligent, cunning. His relationships with his children mostly make sense given the way he operates.

Cersei advanced his family name by marrying King Robert, which was good. But she makes stupid decisions, takes unnecessary risks, and arrogantly thinks that none of this will catch up with her. Tywin correctly identifies her key weakness being that she thinks she is much more clever than she actually is.

Jamie could be a reasonably useful chess piece in Tywin's arsenal, but by Lannister standards he isn't as cunning and "big picture" intelligent as Tywin is, or even Cersei. I'd say Jamie knows his own limitations in that regard way better than Cersei though. During the Targaryen reign, his position in the Kingsguard would have been potentially useful, but that turns for the worse when he sullies the family name by becoming the "Kingslayer", even if his actions were justified. His Kingsguard position and skillset in general become much less useful during Robert's rule, which further hurts his relationship with Tywin. All still makes sense from a cold, calculating perspective.

Then you get to Tyrion. Tywin has an antagonistic relationship with Tyrion, and seems to refuse to see that Tyrion is the best bet to take over the reins of House Lannister after Tywin himself is gone. I know that it is suggested that Tywin's bias against Tyrion comes from the combination of A) him "killing" his mother in childbirth and B) being born a "freak" dwarf. I have a hard time with that because I see Tywin as being too cold, logical, and pragmatic to let either of those issues cloud his judgement.

So Tyrion "killed" his mother (Tywin's wife). Perhaps that event had a profound effect on Tywin, but considering the way he plays his children as pawns on his chessboard, it seems more in his character for him to have viewed his wife that way also. Especially considering the normal state of noble marriages being primarily chosen to maximize political gain in the setting. Plus, mothers dying during childbirth probably wouldn't be an exceptionally uncommon thing in the setting either.

And Tyrion being a dwarf? So what -- Tywin only cares about what you can do to advance the family name. Tyrion could easily be groomed to take over as family mastermind while keeping Cersei, Jamie, or one of Cersei's children as the public face of the family. Pay no attention to the man, er, dwarf behind the curtain.

I guess I just find Tywin's relationship with Tyrion to be the one thing about his character that feels ... off, at least to me. I feel like Tywin would be more ready to give Tyrion some opportunities to prove himself, and less subjective about judging his performance in those situations.

Can't argue with anything you said, except I don't believe there is an equivalency to FOX of all network news, although I think the success of FOX has definitely encouraged the downward spiral of non-FOX networks as they try to keep up.

The truth is out there, although it's increasingly difficult to discern from within this 3000-mile-wide bubble, and people can be easily waylaid by false narratives. I don't think our elected officials and Washington "insiders" even fully grasp the big picture. That gives lots of breathing room for dispair and paranoia, as well as conspiracy theorists who see clandestine machinations in everything. There absolutely is treachery afoot, but that doesn't mean every terrorist attack or shooting rampage is a government plot.

Harper's out after the next election. I agree with the sentiment that his broken promises should be exposed, but I feel that this narrow personal focus loses sight of the big picture. I figure there going to have to forward their old domain to one of:

shitmulcaredid.ca
shittrudeaudid.ca
shitmaydid.ca

Same shit, different colour. (Notice the Canadian spelling of colour, eh.)

Even with limits of corporate campaign donations in Canada, there are loopholes in the system. This is not to say we've reduced it to a free speech argument like Citizens United, but it's still damned shady. I don't see real change coming from any party, sorry.

The wealth gap is growing around the world and corporate cronyism is ruining the world economy. This isn't solely Harper's fault. Sure he's a stooge, but even Obama is little more than a puppet in the stalled house.

I must be getting cynical in my old age!

There are things that are not accepted by all but that just have to be tolerated as the alternatives are way worse. On abortion that means providing access to safe abortion cause if you don't, theyäll happen anyway.. And what then.. when a mother dies from illegal abortion, doesn't that mean we lost two lives instead of one. Personally don't consider fetus living, i'm teetering on whther it's the amount of brain capacity, heart pumping or is it simply the point when a child can be brought out of womb and it has some level of survivability, i don't know. That is not the point.

One things that is not discussed here is THE point of her talk: prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. That doesn't mean abstinence but condoms, pills, counseling, info and abstinence (i do believe that not all youngsters should be having sex, abstinence is the BEST choice for those early year, no doubt in that. But instead of giving all single people, young, old or between, only ONE choice, and if that fails you have failed your life, why not give them access to the second best and so on.. Religion....

Keep religion out of this and just look at things in neutral manner. Some don't like gay sex but have no problem with gay marriage, just like some don't like carrots but have no problem other eating it.Banning either will not make them go away, if carrots were made illegal, people would still eat and grow them. So get out of that shell and try to look the big picture, ten try to look at things from the perspective of people who are actually going thru with it (most pro-lifers never had to do abortion, they have no clue on what's going on that persons head who makes such a choice; they have zero sympathy and are essentially sociopaths when dealing with this issue. No understanding, no caring, just pure judgement..

Plus human society has changed, we live healthier lives and longer so it only makes sense to have some variety when people want to procreate. The best possible time, place, resources, partner.. when all that falls in place wouldn't you think that is the best time to bring new people in? Not when your time is spent trying to gather those things, having a kid then might just slow that progress to a halt and we have yet another generation living in poverty and diminished options in life (we are talking USA here, where you have very limited social mobility, basically the more equal society, the less there are reasons for abortions... Most abortion occur simply because the mother can not provide a good life to a new human. More equal societies tend to take care of the societys main building blocks a lot better.

>> ^kymbos:

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.


I'm pleased you are so easily entertained, though that was not my intent. It was, actually, to point out that making silly generalizations was pointless. Anyway, like my wife, I'm pretty sure you will need to have the last word, even though you have nothing rational to say. I'm done.

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.

>> ^kymbos:

Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.

Whatever happened to real news? Oh yeah, it never really existed in the first place!
We need more pentagon papers kinna folks-Not so much reporters as participants...people who see the big picture and risk imprisonment in the name of information distribution. People who realize that a non-disclosure statement signed will at at some point, mean your own mental and spiritual demise.

Real history would record that Lyndon B. Johnson was a complete piece of human garbage. Buildings should be renamed that carry his name, the man was a fucking monster. His administration fucked us to stone age in the grand schemata....

Assange fucked up. He wasn't choosy enough with what he released, eh?

>> ^criticalthud:

2. mostly unrealistic. america is #1 energy hog and neither technology advancements nor more drilling here will solve that or feed that gluttonous thirst. we are dependent on foreign energy, which is partly why we have 450 military bases around the world. We need to reduce need, and to do that, we need to re-examine our role in the world as pure consumers.

Well said. There are number of things that would reduce the power consumption right away. Refine the stupid pollution control that favors higher consumption in vehicles (lower consumption = more pollution per gallon when it should be mileage vs pollution.. now you can make a car that goes 10MPG but "pollutes" less), invest in public transport, invest in renewal sources.. You got huge amounts of land empty that could be used for solar farming, long coastlines to harvest wave energy, enough thermal activity to take energy from there (allthou thinking that USA is drilling to the core frightens me, you people have never been could at moderation...).

It seems to be that the thinking goes: This (particular) renewable source is not enough so we don't do it at all. But step by step, it would start to play a major part in the big picture. And there's endless supplies of solar energy, 250 W/m2 in average taking cloud cover and sun angle in to account.

Rumours are that Valve is making a "Steam Box" - a sort of media center/console/PC for your living room. Could this Big Picture actually be part of their big picture?

Man, I could write rhetorical headlines for a tabloid.

Try it now...

"To opt into the beta, go to the Steam menu and select settings. From this screen, you can click the change button under the Beta participation heading and select the "Steam Beta Update." Once you’ve committed your selection, Steam will prompt you to restart the application. Once it’s back up and running, you’ll find a BIG PICTURE button near the upper right-hand corner of Steam’s main window. Click this, or if you have a game controller up and running, press its center button to enter Big Picture mode."

*promote

Not everything in this video is bunk, but if they want me to buy into their big picture at all, much less, even listen to what they have to say, crop circles and Deepak Chopra have exactly the opposite effect.