Why is not wanting to go to war in Syria considered anti-US? More than half the house of representatives seem to not want to go to war in Syria.

Nobody knows what happened, for sure, or who used the weapons, Assad, or the Rebels, but I actually don't care. It shouldn't involve the US's military.

And because I don't think anyone who wasn't there knows who did what, and even if someone did, because I have no way of vetting their investigations/spin, I have to go with what was my first guess based on who stands to gain. I think likely some Syrian govt. CW depot was captured by the Rebels, or someone in the Syrian military with access to CW, defected to the Rebels, or a Rebel sympathizer in the Syrian military who had not defected officially fired the CW in order to get the US and pals to intervene on the Rebel's behalf.

It only makes sense that the Rebels bombed themselves.

The US shouldn't be anyone's tool.

Also - Syria under Assad is in the US's interest. Having Assad there as a threat gives the US leverage over Saudi Arabia and others in the area who open the oil spigots whenever the US calls because the US is important in protecting themselves from the Assad/Iraq/Iran axis. Assad/Iraq/Iran, aren't the buddies of the US, which means the US isn't liable in a P.R. way for any damage they do, but they could only do real damage with US complicity. This makes them the US's mafia muscle in the area. If the US got rid of Assad, it would be like icing it's own hitman.

Who will pay for protection without the muscle?

And Europe wants a pipeline from SA through Syria so it isn't as dependent on Russian oil. And SA wants the added customers in Europe which BTW would help it thumb it's nose at the US.

How is getting rid of Assad good for the US again?

And the NSA are experts. And the military is a big customer. All you have to do is requrire backdoor-enabled encryption in all military hardware ( it could be secure against anyone without the NSA keys ) or give the most prestigious security certifications to only the stuff with the backdoors, justifying it on some other grounds, and you don't need to send national security letters. People will do it voluntarily - Don't you want to use the security that the experts at the NSA have vetted? And if it weren't secure why would the military be buying it? They're eating their own dogfood, so it can't be bad right?

Also if you're a for profit company you don't REALLY give a damn if the NSA is spying. You're out for money.

And if you are not using software designed for profit, but talking to/through software that is compromised, are you compromised? Has the protocol been negotiated to a level friendly to snooping? You only have control over the software you are running yourself, if you had any.

Leaving messages on the mens room wall spreads info anonymously. I don't think they'll ever crack that without looking at more cracks than they want.

Management that hears it is put in the position of either using their budget to fix it to standard which they should have been following but weren't gaining them nothing, or admitting that THEY screwed up and asking for additional funds from their manager who would be in a similar position.

Mark Twain said something along the lines of 'It's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled.'

This is more interesting than what I posted. I wish I'd modded instead.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_strange_sto.html

Without ssl to protect you, none of these are going to help.

But you pay taxes on 3/3 so the other third goes to Uncle Sam. You'll be lucky if you don't owe taxes beyond what you won in court.

Hanlon's Razor is absolutely essential in understanding things. It's because three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

So when other countries stop having faith in an infinite number of Yankee Dollars (which they will) and stop taking them you'll see the whole thing come crashing down

If someone has something the US wants to buy ( like oil ) then they'll just be bombed till they do. Soon enough the powers that be will realize this ( they already have ) and just take the dollars and accept living like the kings they are *within the system*. If you have power, do you ally with the winning side, or do you attempt to find a coalition of those being shat upon? If you have power, you personally aren't being shat upon, because you rationally sell out. It's those with no power who are being shat upon - the poor. So who exactly is there to oppose power?

Macheavellii would say that it's always better to ally with the weaker side because it increases your leverage and prevents you from becoming someone's bitch, but do you really CARE if you are someone's bitch? I mean who wouldn't rather be a billionaire than a king? You get all the perks without the stress/risk/culpability

And the fact is, most humans are redundant. The world is going through a sea change as big as the one that caused an end to serfdom and brought forth the enlightenment and the rights of man. Instead of people being valuable b/c of megadeath caused by the black plague, and new untapped worlds opening up around the world begging for humans to take advantage the world is filling up. Stuff is more valuable than people. Now that humans are not valuable, they will be treated worse than before. I wouldn't be surprise to see a rolling back of the gains made since the middle ages. Only megadeath would seem to have a chance of making humans more valuable relative to things.

UC Davis' Gregory Clark has some iteresting insights about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZlXaGEzwg&list=PLmq9H75aU8iNWq2oXfH2y82yH1HzaITpa

Also, technology during the industrial revolution pushed human labor into pursuits that could not be mechanized. With thought itself more and more mechanizable, what is left for humans? http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-articles-about-robots-2012-12 ?

Paris Hilton is very productive. ( in the economic sense where work done with a backhoe is more productive than work done with a hand shovel ) Her labors are mixed with a very high level of capital. And what do those labors consist of? Merely not losing her money. Does she need to be superior in any way to perform her duties? is there any meritocracy going on? Well...

She can and likely does hire a finanacial planner. Brains are a dime a dozen.

She buys $40,000.00 purses. So at first glance it would seem she does a poor job at not losing her money. But she can afford $40,000.00 purses. That doesn't realy represent substantial consumption. Giving away half her money to someone who's never had money would involve *massive* consumption. If she gave me half her wealth, I would probably give half of it away to people I know who would also spread the wealth themselves etc. This would cause *millions* of dollars in consumption. A $40,000.00 purse is nothing.

So it seems Paris Hilton is far better qualified than I to be wealthy.

But isn't it weird that she doesn't have to do anything but not consume?

All she needs to do to not give away her wealth is insulate herself from need and the temptation to give it all away. That is, she need only stay amongst the her own kind and not mingle with the peasants.

Societies that support this tendency win out militarily because those societies with the most capital will be able to field the most fearsome militariy might including robotic military might. There is no reason to suppose that without valuable labor to parlay into means to consume, that most humans will have franchise in the future. As human endeavor becomes worth less humans will perish.

And robots should they come to mainly comprise the military, work against the naturally democratizing nature of military power which is that if the military comes from the peasantry then they will not kill the peasantry. It's no accident that the nobility WAS the military in the middle ages. It's the most efficient way to keep power in the hands of the fewest consumers. Technology would seem likely only to increase the levereage power can concentrate with. How few could actually run the world? Maybe someday zero.

But it's also likely that with concentrated power technological progress would slow.

The concentration of wealth and power leads to monopolies. And monopolies maximize profit, not production. This may actually be 'greener' than the alternative where production is maximized. The forests of Europe still have game. Would this be the case if they weren't owned by the nobility?

With the world divided amongst powerful monopolies who would have the incentive to disrupt things with new technology?

I've been using Xubuntu for a while, and like it. I switched from Kubuntu when some update of some widget I never heard of and probably didn't use messed me up to the point that it was easier to reinstall than track down the problem. I am not sure what kind of user you are, but Xubuntu's philosophy of leaving things out you probably don't need is the balance that fits me best.

I've choked down some mealworms and crickets. Live and cooked. The biggest barrier between me and enjoying it, is the fact that I'm eating their digestive systems. I'm eating their poop. There's just no avoiding eating poop if you're eating bugs.

I bet they can own your computer if they want to. It's a whole new threat model you'd suddenly be dealing with. It would be VERY tough to live up to that. You wouldn't be able to do much at all without them knowing.

So I imagine Snowden sleeping on an uncomfortable plastic bench slurping ketchup packets and eating saltines. Is he gonna do that forever?

Yeah, I mean anyone with anything to hide will be using Tor. Are people too stupid to use Tor really a threat that the NSA needs to be brought to bear to worry about? The only ones who lose are private citizens. Unless you go to extraordinary lengths you won't be able to keep the NSA from connecting an old slashdot post with your real name. Who cares right? Not me, but the Internet isn't just about about now, what you say is for all time. If an evil dictator comes to power you can't quit saying stuff that might piss them off and go about your business. Anything you've already said when it was still OK to do so can be used against you.