@00scud00-Well....think about ethics and morality of which there exits some modicum of universally agreed-upon standards and then try to get at least a half-planet full of humans as populous as ours bees today to abide by a fundamental framework based on the same, and you've got yer clusterfuck of a paradigm destined to perhaps survive it's own ignorance after some external or orchestrated deluge, with a semblance of a reasonable outcome for anyone left standing.

The problem is this is wishful thinking.

Unless you're a shareholder, you don't get a vote on how corporate funds are spent. There isn't an opportunity cost argument here unless you believe in state ownership or heavy intervention far beyond the level of regulation we have now.

Of course the government should incentive net benefits to society, say through subsidies or tax benefits, that the market undervalues such as health or transportation which has externality benefits that capitalism doesn't capture effectively. But that's a far cry from indicating specifically where it should be spent.

It's been tested and the "best" audiophiles can't hear differences between 14bit and 16bit, nor can they hear differences between 44.khz and ANYTHING higher. In some tests they could use12bit sound with 36khz sampling frequency... The differences they hear are inside their head. Thus the description of improved sound is always "air", "brilliance", "organic" etc.. Don't be fooled by their fancy gear, most of it is for nothing. Cables: i am always willing to bet my months salary on doubleblind tests, 10 000€/m against a coat hanger, no audible differences.. It's all about confirmation bias, you think there's a change and suddenly you hear it.

About MP3s vs PCM:
Here we have audible differences. But. Put on high enough energy, ie turn your amp high enough, suddenly double blind studies can't find which is which. But it can be audible, mp3 is lossy format and even 320kbps can be heard. Not with all material, it's about in the limits of human hearing. Some might hear high end loss, if you're in your twenties. Once you hit 40, everything above 17khz is gone, forever. You will never hear 20k again. And to really notice the difference, you need good gear. Your laptop earphone output most likely won't even output anything past 18khz well and it's dynamic range can be represented with 8bit depth.. It can be just horrible. Fix that with usb box, around 80€: you can take that box anywhere on planet to the most "hifiest" guy out there and he can't hear the difference between his 10000€ A/D converter.. In fact, 5€ A/D converter can produce the same output as 3000€ one... That's not why i said buy a external.. It's more to do with RF and other shielding, protection against the noises a computer makes than A/D conversion quality. Note, i'm talking about audible differences, you can find faults with measuring equipment and 95% of the gear price is about "just to be sure".

If you want a good sound, first, treat your room. Dampen it, shape it.. If you spent 10k on stereo and 0 on acoustics, you will not have a good sound no matter what you do. Spend the same amount on acoustics than what you do on you equipment, room makes a lot more differences than gear. Next comes speakers, they are the worst link in the chain by a large margin. Quality costs, still wouldn't go to extremes here either, the changes are again "just to be sure", not always audible.. Then amps, beefy, low noise, A/B. You don't need to spend a huge lot of money but some. Then cables.. Take the 50€ version instead of 300€ or 3000€. Build quality and connectors, durability. Those are the reason to buy more expensive than 5€. Not because of sound quality.. There will always be group of people that will swear they can hear the differences, that's bullcrap. Human ear CAN NOT detect any chances, even meters are having a REALLY hard time getting any changes. You need to either amp up the signal to saturation point, or use frequencies in the Mhz ranges, thousands of times higher than what media needs to get any changes between cheapest crap and high end scams.

Audiophiles can't be convinced they are wrong, they are suffering from the same thing antivax people do: give them facts, they will be even more convinced they are right.

@enoch

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the part on rewriting corporate law based on its impracticality. Part of the effectiveness of capitalism is its unambiguous incentives, something as subjective as the public good would be too broadly interpretable and open up firms to endless lawsuits.

Negative externalities like pollution, standards on employment conditions, and anti-competitive rent seeking are all things best addressed in an adversarial system of corporation vs. government/citizens. In the same way asking the prosecutor to give a lenient prosecution would not work, polarised, balanced advocates work best in a market economy.

Obviously this has broken down to various extents. Corporate lobbying has tipped the balance. Short terms politicians and executives are incentivised to generated jobs/growth in the short term at the expense of sustainability. Larger corporations have the money to buy barriers to entry for competitors by capturing regulatory agencies.

Ideally countries would go to public funding system once you clear x votes of nominations or something similar, you'd have a shorter election cycle and advertising blackouts for a portion of that to limit the influence of money further, scrap jerry-mandering. Even if that were possible in the US, I'm of the view that the money would seep through in some shape or another. In many ways, the US as a concentration of the wealthy is a victim of its own success in the weight that this wealth has on its socio-economic future.

Somewhat more contrary to more left leaning arguments, I think populism fails equally. Now admittedly what passes for populism nowadays, economically at least, is simply the rebranded intentions of corporations with vested interests. But genuine populist economic policy also fails. People want the government to give them things for free and not give other people things for free. They'd rather see uncompetitive industries be propped up forever with subsidies than let them close.

I'm coming around to the view that what's needed is longer term limits, greater executive authority and concentration of power but balanced by firm limits on any elected office tenure. People don't appreciate the long term effects of effective policy before they have a chance to vote politicians out on the short term cost. Longer term limits, say 5-6 years x 2 possible terms would help alleviate that. It would detach elected officials from the need to constantly raise funds. Politicans could actually effect the mandate they were voted in on. Obviously this raises risks of abuse of power but as with everything, you have to balance that against the costs of long term stagnation.

I hate to create a comparison here to central banks, but it's an undeniable fact that once central bank officials were installed independent to act free from the whims of politicans in most developed countries in the 1970-90s, inflation quickly became a thing of the past. People can argue about current policy, devaluing the currency, the way funds are being distributed currently, but the point above is a historic fact. I am of the view that the same would hold (when applied in a more limited way) for the broader economy.

But anyway, this is all wonderfully imagine fantasy land.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

wow...so many claims...but so little to back it up.

The biggest one is in the beginning where the woman builds up what a human being is, then dismisses gov't as if it's some sort of external alien enemy that's been forced on us.

But wait! What is gov't? Wasn't it built by....gasp! Human beings? The very thing this woman is building up as so awesome and able do stuff on it's own? A long long long time ago, a bunch of humans got together and saw the world around them and decided they needed some sort of regulating system and viola!

So what do you think would happen if gov't magically went away? Maybe the exact same thing? But this video makes the claim that gov't is bad. so maybe we should tell people they can't make a gov't. That would require some sort of..edict....or....law? But wait...who would enforce this law of no government? some sort of...government?

I've always loved those arguments based on the idea that our current system isn't perfect, therefore that is adequate justification for complete eradication of the current system and put something we know wouldn't work in it's place. You can't solve complex problems with simple solutions. That's hopefully the biggest thing society learns right now. Sarah Palin is the perfect example of that. So hopefully it's her example that will finally put the nail in the coffin in this idea that "folksy" simple solutions just don't work in a modern society.

But hey. If the non-statists are serious. They are obviously free to leave all these governments and leave it all behind and forge out on their own on some uninhabited island. Obviously they won't do that though.

They're too comfortable in our existing system despite it's flaws. How else are they going to blog their message using youtube unless they are in some sort of government controlled nation that has such technology cheaply available to its citizens? They're like the creationists that deny science, yet gladly use systems created by advanced science to spread their message and would never give up the benefits of said science.

I agree. Someday, people are going to figure out how to get along with each other without outside regulation. Someday gov't just simply won't have anything left to do. But that day is the day when we stop being human beings and become something else. Because right now, human beings are generally dicks to other human beings if they know they can get away with it. And we've decided we don't like it when human beings do dickish things to other human beings so we created a governing system to help deal with that. Sure it isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

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.

returning* to his evolutionary roots, eh?

..also, why is everyone (or maybe just people who produce pop science content) obsessed with octopus intelligence? Like many cool things that octopus do, this is complex behavior.. but likely innate, and not a sign of intelligence.


*Dear inevitable trolls: I do not mean to imply that cephalopods evolved from bivalves, only that they had a molluscan ancestor with an external shell.

Ditto. I was a teen(ager) back then! I got it from a local BBS, but couldn’t play it. My next door neighbor could on his 386 DX machine, but he had to study for finals so he only played a few levels. Haha. Years later, I made two DOOM 2 mod(ification)s: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/doom2/j2doom/j2doom.html … I still have my external USR Sportster 33.6 dial-up modem. I think I played DOOM at 9600 speeds with my next door neighbor (we both had 14.4k modems! ).

Does anyone remember what time DOOM 1 shareware was released to the public? I couldn't find that answer.

In general, there is no intrinsic, self generated peace and internal affirmation from those who live the homosexual life style. Hence the perpetual need for external affirmation and support from all quarters.

I will never buy a mac... but I sure as hell appreciate the mechanical and electronic engineering in this thing. Yes... expandability sucks in some ways, naturally with thunderbolt-2 or whatever the hell they call it, external disk is no problem at all, but the graphics and memory will hit its limits.

I remember when external wifi meant you had this cigarette pack sized box with a USB cable. Now the damn things are smaller than the metal part of the USB end.

Van Jones is kinda kooky in my opinion. I digress.

To imply that Obamacare is a Republican plan is ludicrous. Why can politicians not take responsibility for their own legislation? Republicans and Democrats are all the same. I see little difference between the two parties. They are all reactive, knee-jerk legislators that believe there needs to be a law for every situation known to mankind.

Leave the American People alone. Me and my neighbors can take care of ourselves.

Van Jones should read Dr. Covey's book:

“Proactive is a word you won’t find in most dictionaries. It means more than merely taking initiative. It means that as human beings, we are responsible for our own lives. Our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions. We can subordinate feelings to values. We have the initiative and the responsibility to make things happen.

Look at the word responsibility- “response-ability”- the ability to respond. Highly proactive people recognize that responsibility. They do not blame circumstances, conditions or conditioning for their behavior. Their behavior is a product of their own conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions, based on feeling.

Because we are, by nature, proactive, if our lives are a function of conditioning and conditions, it is because we have, by conscious decision or by default, chosen to empower those things to control us.

In making such a choice, we become reactive. Reactive people are often affected by their physical environment. If the weather is good, they feel good. If it isn’t, it affects their attitude and their performance. Proactive people can carry their own weather with them. Whether it rains or shines makes no difference to them. They are value driven; and if their value is to produce good quality work, it isn’t a function of whether the weather is conducive to it or not.

Reactive people are also affected by the social environment, by the “social weather.” When people treat them well, they feel well, when people don’t, they become defensive or protective. Reactive people build their emotional lives around the behavior of others, empowering the weaknesses of other people to control them.

The ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person. Reactive people are driven by feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, by their environment. Proactive people are driven by values-carefully thought about, selected and internalized values.

Proactive people are still influenced by external stimuli, whether physical, social, or psychological. But their response to the stimuli, conscious or unconscious, is a value-based choice or response.

As Eleanor Roosevelt observed, “No one can hurt you without your consent.” In the word of Gandhi , “They cannot take away our self respect if we do not give it to them” It is our willing permission, our consent to what happens to us, that hurts us far more than what happens to us in the first place.

I admit this is very hard to accept emotionally, especially if we have had years and years of explaining our misery in the name of circumstance or someone else’s behavior. But until a person can say deeply and honestly, “I am what I am today because of the choices I made yesterday,” that person cannot say, “I choose otherwise.”

Small affordable homes that could be moved as needed and attach to external utilities were invented decades ago - it's called a trailer. (or mobile home).