This makes a lot of sense, but the problem that I see is that Police in other countries are not having the same issues with lack of trust and they are frequently required to do their jobs without even a sidearm much less and assault rifle and an MRAP. Secondly most cops you will meet don't escalate a situation because they feel that their person is in danger, they escalate because they feel that their pride is in danger. Try telling a cop no to an unlawful search and revel as they pull out every intimidating trick in the book to scare you into submission.

I agree that courtesy goes a long way, but the problem that a lot of poorer neighborhoods are facing is that with laws as complex an vague as they are, many counties have criminalized everything short of staying home from work. I live ~5 miles from Ferguson and some of the crap that goes on in these county courts is unbelievable. They cops are unbelievably aggressive in issuing tickets because many of these municipal budgets are 60%-70% funded off of traffic tickets. As a result people are poked and prodded almost constantly which leads to frustration and anger. People believe that they are being victimized.

Its easy to be nice the first few times, and to acknowledge that you made a mistake, but what about the tenth time that month? what about the 40th time that year? That is what a lot of these people are facing. There are 50% more warrants for arrest, based almost solely on failure to pay tickets, in Ferguson than there are people in the entire city. When you can't even get into a car without getting a ticket it becomes a lot harder to be civil.

If paying a small subscription would eliminate Google's tracking nonsense then sign me up, but from the link it seems that all it does is replace the adds with a "thank you" message. I can get that for free with add block and no script that also reduce the clutter on the page, vastly improve load times, and improve security.

Its worse than that. Traders have been shown to be potentially even worse than a random investment strategy.

http://www.plosone.org/article...

From the conclusion:
"The average percentages of wins for the five strategies are always comparable and oscillate around , with small random differences which depend on the financial index considered."

"The second important result is that the fluctuations of the random strategy are always smaller than those of the other strategies (as it is also visible in Fig. 9 for the case ): this means that the random strategy is less risky than the considered standard trading strategies"

I agree that the article is misrepresented badly. I read the article long before it was posted here and what I drew from it was that Greenwald seemed to advocating that the solution to mass surveillance would start from bottom up activism, such as boycotts and demonstrations, and not from congress spontaneously deciding that they would play nice. Which is honestly how democracy really works. If congress is failing to reign in mass surveillance it is because they don't fear losing their jobs over their failure to do so.

This is, however, wrapped up in Greenwald's writing style which tends to pack more than a little vitriol towards the government in general.

And how far we've fallen. Our congressmen used to have brawls on the floor.

http://history.house.gov/Histo...

funny enough they could still laugh it off and get stuff done just two days later.

The good news is that in order to keep up NOAA is planning to buy Chinese super computers....right after a Chinese team hacked them.

Citation please.

I would also like to see a comparison between experience levels, seniority in the company, and other factors.

I don't care about douche bags in power because I don't believe someone should be punished for being an asshole. If that douche bag takes a specific action that damages other innocent people then they should be punished for that action, not because you find them to be offensive or abrasive people. This is the concept behind free speech.

If the VP of Uber was actually engaging in smear campaigns by spying on journalists then he should be punished for that, but if he said that they deserve to be smeared then he has not done anything that has caused harm despite how offensive we may find that statement.

"Also if you don't already have a good monitor, that's even more of an investment"

Just like an xbox needs a TV to be used and TVs, at least good ones, are far more expensive than monitors.

" you forget the a console gamer can buy used games at a store"

for less than 15% off the price of a new version and your trade ins will net you a pittance. On the PC I could preorder Borderlands 2 for $35 with a season pass and a free copy of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, a then $50 title.

I play around 15-20 games a year and I spend less than $100 on the lot of them. XBox live alone nearly meets that price line and the $10 console markup rate on most games along with the lack of giant sales means that even if you buy 5-7 games a year at only +$20 each over the PC counterpart you have earned enough every 2 years to buy a new graphics card. Also I use my old graphics cards as physx cards and I am able to run most new AAA games at ultra with a 650Ti Boost ($150 at retail). Add to that I can use my PC for general use you save far more money gaming on a PC.

Furthermore, to suggest that a console owner saves money based on a 1:1 comparison between the cost of a console and the cost of a PC you also have to assume that the console owner doesn't own a PC. Really what needs to be compared is the marginal cost between a standard computer and a gaming rig which is less than $400 even if you are being generous.

The console being more cost effective is a myth. The real draw to a console is that it is an out of the box solution, no messing around with third party apps an installers, and much more effective local multiplayer.

Very true that the companies benefit more from your continued business.

Another key part is that credit card companies also make money from the funds that they have frozen. All of that cash is sitting in their accounts accruing interest, and in that sense they are incentivised to hold the money as long as possible, not to cave to the merchants.

If you are so terrified of such an attack then lock yourself in a box and bury it deep. It's the only real way to be safe.

In the meantime I would rather live free and happy right up until the blast.

Unless it's a farm!

To boil down several interesting points. You brain is who you are, but your brain is shaped by your experiences which differ across varying races and ethnic backgrounds as they provide the context of the brains growth.

To say that you can find diversity based on race alone is ignorant.

To say that you can find diversity within the mind alone in ignorant.

Everything you see, do, hear, touch, feel, and experience makes you who you are, and those experiences and context are frequently (and sadly) dictated by appearance and ethnic background.

As for being able to look past that are you sure? Can you tell me about the pain of a Palestinian mother who watched her son die in Gaza and her rage at the Israelis for taking him? Can you know the joy of an adventurer who crested the summit of mt. Everest? Can you look into the eyes of the protesters at Tienanmen square and understand the stifling weight of oppression that drove them to the streets? That drove a common man to stand down a tank?

Of course not. To say that you can look past race is to say that you are looking past the forces that shaped them to be who they are. The mind can only reflect who they are AT THAT MOMENT, but to have a shot at understanding someone you have to look at where they come from.

Context is important.

I think what is driving this issue is the ballooning of student loan debt in recent years that some are speculating will be the next financial bubble to burst(up to something like 1.5 Trillion in recent years). This is especially scary as you cannot avoid student loan debt through bankruptcy. As a measure to ensure that the government can stop the hemorrhaging of money this might have an impact, but as a measure to help students all it will end up doing is make the competition for scholarships that much harder for poor students.

I do agree that an 18 year old can make their own decisions, but as far as education is concerned it may not be practical. An 18 year old should be mentally independent, but they are rarely financially independent, and as long as they are dependent on someone else for money in regards to their education they do have to respect that persons input. For the most part input is good, but not when people are labeled as dropouts for failing to get a university degree.

This pressures younger people into getting a degree when it would be better for them to go to trade school or a similar training program. Add to that the pressure to go to a well regarded (read: expensive) university and the pressure mounts to take out loans that they can't afford with the belief that obtaining such a degree is the only realistic way to be successful.

In that case you pointed out that state schools are a good option, but I found when I was applying for college in Missouri that my state schools didn't offer very good degrees in the field that I new I wished to pursue which led me to look to out of state schools, hoping to get by on my scholarships. I ended up in a very expensive private university, but with enough aid money to get by without taking on debt.

I think it unfair to blame the students for taking on debt when employers often times won't look seriously at candidates without a reputable degree, and then tell them that they are to blame to taking on debt in order to the get the degree that employers expect.