And here I thought the claims around his four laptops were put to rest in July of last year or, at the very latest, after his meeting with Ray MacGovern, Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake in October.

There was nothing of substance on those laptops and to suggest otherwise with any credibility demands extraordinary proof.

Why?

Because of two primary reasons, as far as I am concerned:

- Any of Snowden's claims has yet to proven false. The entire apparatus is trying and they failed miserably so far. Probably because Snowden actually knows what he's talking about, unlike such cranks as Rep. Peter King.

- Snowden spent years working within the intelligence industry (CIA, NSA, private contractors) and he has proven to be careful and meticulous. Unlike the public (or the British MoD), he'd know better than to transport any sensitive information on a device like a laptop or a smartphone. Or an external harddrive. Or a disk. He'd use flash memory, possibly a thumb drive, probably an SD card -- the less embedded controllers a device has, the better. Heavily encrypted, of course, and if anyone doesn't believe that crypto works... tough luck, I'm done trying to convince people otherwise.

So, the only people who received data from him are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. American journalists reporting on American issues, just like he said.

As for the the revelation of "tons of national secrets and techniques": he has revealed nothing. Let me say that again: Snowden has revealed nothing.

He has empowered members of the press, the fourth estate, to do their bloody jobs and fullfil their role as watchdog over the government, something they failed at miserably in this particular regard. All revelations happen at the discretion of those journalists who are now the sole proprietors of the Snowden-documents.

If, however, you don't subscribe to the notion of a free press as a line of defence against government abuse, then I can't change your mind.

By the way, "putting American lives at risk" should have received a trademark by now, the way it has been waved around to kill uncomfortable conversations. I vividly remember how desperate they were to find proof that the Afghan/Iraqi War Logs and the Gitmo Files were endangering lives. As far as I know, they never found any. And as far as I know, all releases based on Snowden-documents were carefully chosen and redacted where neccessary to protect the identity of human assets. All claims to the contrary need to provide evidence.

But I'm glad to see that the "American industry" has found its way into the argument. At least we don't have to pretend that this is solely about terrorism anymore. Industrial espionage, diplomatic advantages and... keeping your own population in check.

Yay! It's just like the old days.

Oh wait, I forgot. My country has been under full scale surveillance by the US, the British and the French since the late '40s, so it's actually business as usual.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

This bees a must-see!
I would guess that this debut-director's work is gonna launch a shitstorm from Disney once they figure out how to hang the guy but by then, the indelible, perceived damage to future patronage Disney paranoids may see to their parks from this guy's FAP will have been done-(Opens October 11, 2013)

"Though the filmmakers may have committed trespass when they broke Disney World's rules and if it violated the terms of entry on their tickets, the film itself is a different matter,"..."As commentary on the social ideals of Disney World, it seems to clearly fall within a well-recognized category of fair use, and therefore probably will not be stopped by a court using copyright or trademark laws."- Tim Wu, New Yorker, blog

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/escape-tomorrow-disneys-strategy-strategy-630906

It looks frikkin' hilarious and Disney deserves every bit of 'it', whatever 'that' is.

ughh....cretin-bashing, the trademark TYT past-time and so nauseatingly mundane.

I got onto a Ricky Gervais kick about 2 years ago. Watched The Office, Extras, listened to all his XFM broadcasts, his audiobooks, Guide To's, watched An Idiot Abroad, etc.. The problem I have with seeing him play Derek is due to the face he makes; I've seen him do that face too many times in other media (Extras as Mr. Stokes for example) so I keep expecting him to break character at any moment with that trademark laugh of his. It's so disconcerting that I have trouble suspending my expectation of it, so that I can actually see and enjoy the character.

I'll watch the show and I'm sure it will be a hit. But I don't think I'll be able to enjoy as much as someone who's new to him.

That's awesome. I'd like to think in 100 million years, this will be a recorded story along the lines of:
"And the creatures of the above-world came down through the great light. There they freed 'sweedleeeezingoooo' from his unworldly bonds which he had born for so many currents. And Lo' they rejoiced in their work, shaking their appendages light-ward in celebration of their good deed"

That aside: Per the comments, why does it have to be a "GoPro" camera? Can't it just be "A CAMERA"? Fuck "GoPro". Is there seriously anything signifanctly different between this stupid little brand name and a regular, versatile camera? Other than the fact that someone manages to squeeze in their stupid little trademarked brand into so many good videos? The volume of it's invasion into the world of youtube videos has made me resolute to never buy one, and hate them outright.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:
So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.

Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.
That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.
And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.
What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.
To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?


You can see Mann's latest work here. Just don't stop with reading the abstract where he declares the reinforcement of his previous studies and findings. Go further down and look at the reconstruction of the last 2k years the article was built on. The green EIV line is the 'newer' statistical method recommended to him by statisticians that claimed his previous method was biased towards 0(minimized highs and lows). You can clearly see the EIV reconstruction shows multiple peaks in the past. More importantly though, look at the last 100 years on the graph. The bold red line is the instrumental record. It blots out most of the last 100 years, but if you look closely, you can see that none of the reconstructed lines spike away into scary land like the instrumental record. In fact, none of the reconstructed lines climb above where the EIV line has peaked multiple times in the past. To me that screams the need to look harder still at the probability that our methods for reconstruction aren't sensitive enough to pick up a short spike like what we know from the instrumental record is currently taking place. That doesn't prove spikes like the last 100 years are common, but it DOES call into serious question the claim that it's never happened before in the last 2k years. That final claim is the vital and key point between everyone panic and lets study this further to understand it fully.

>> ^bcglorf:

So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.


Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.

That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.

And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.

What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.

To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?

>> ^spawnflagger:

I like the idea, but didn't he do a simple product search ?
or hell, even the domain itself - http://www.gojo.com/ . It's a brand of hand cleaner (good stuff too) that's been around for years.
I don't see how he isn't infringing on the brand/trademark "gojo", so a lot of legal battles ahead...
Oh, and lastly - cancer. Do you want a high-powered cell phone transmitter next to your brain, or a low powered bluetooth headset?


Trademarks are only supposed to protect against similar products. It would be trademark infringement to make another soap or cleanser and call it Gojo. A shampoo would probably be considered too similar; maybe something cleaning-related like a sponge or scrubbing brush, too. A headband with a suction cup is not in the same market so it shouldn't be in violation.

The microwaves that are emitted by a cell phone are non-ionizing and thus, not linked to cancer. They're in the same carcinogen group (2B) as coffee and pickles.

Gojo?? Trademarked name of a gelatinous hand cleaner-This guys can't be trying to convince people to wear their damn microwave devices that close to their skulls?
Get off the fucking phone, Joe!?

I like the idea, but didn't he do a simple product search ?
or hell, even the domain itself - http://www.gojo.com/ . It's a brand of hand cleaner (good stuff too) that's been around for years.
I don't see how he isn't infringing on the brand/trademark "gojo", so a lot of legal battles ahead...

And how would it be possible to put that on using only 1 hand while driving?
or does he expect you to have phone tied to your head the entire time driving, even if not on a phone call ?

Oh, and lastly - cancer. Do you want a high-powered cell phone transmitter next to your brain, or a low powered bluetooth headset?

Secret Ops only - I usualy hire out the stuff where one can be seen or get caught.
>> ^ant:

>> ^Sagemind:
Maybe it's just a great way to get around a Trademarked name
>> ^ant:
Who is Darth Vadar? Is he a clone of Darth Vader?


Heh. How come you weren't in the video, Mr. Fett?
comedy scifi wheels

>> ^Sagemind:

Maybe it's just a great way to get around a Trademarked name
>> ^ant:
Who is Darth Vadar? Is he a clone of Darth Vader?



Heh. How come you weren't in the video, Mr. Fett?

*comedy *scifi *wheels

Maybe it's just a great way to get around a Trademarked name

>> ^ant:

Who is Darth Vadar? Is he a clone of Darth Vader?

Because I am a nerd, the subtitles:

Lunar Materials Fluidification and Firing
Feldspar Extraction Technique and Belt-Driven Flame Kiln are proprietary to Aperture Science. Do not describe the events depicted in this scene.

Ballistic Turing Test
"Polylunarcarbonate ballistic redisintermediation" is a registered trademark of Aperture Science.

Diamond-Assisted Panel Abridgement
In the event of a clogged diamond disposal chute, DO NOT attempt to clear diamond hole.

Packing Simulation Trial
Please note: these panels are intended for simulated transportation environments only, and should not be used in an actual packaging event.

Completed Test Chamber
This test chamber was constructed for promotional purposes only, and may not accurately reflect the actual panel distribution cost of an official Enrichment Center activity.

Extra-Earth Outsourcing Initiative
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to Earths not residing in the public domain is guaranteed by the physical laws of multiverse theory, and therefore not actionable.

How It Works
This is not a dramatization. An Earth where sea mollusks have created an advanced land-based society with wholly inappropriate bipedal keyboards is guaranteed to exist.

The Multiverse and You
A Note About Getting Back to Work: In the event that you are reading this, get back to work.

(Throughout)
This Aperture Science Extra-Earth Outsourcing and Perpetual Testing Initiative Employee Orientation Video is for internal use only. Do not distribute to other Earths.