Whatever that USSR joke line is. but reversed.
You can't be free without a cost. If lawyers are going to continue to ruin society, we need to curb them... but given how democracy is failing those issues are really sideshow to the real problems. Cutting down on misinformation and ignorance are one of the few things left that can be done to support democracy.
The Mussolini's political party where Fascism comes from and while that famous quote of his "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism" can not have it's attribution proven; it is not far from the manifesto of HIS party that the man promoted. When I asked a poly sci professor whom was familiar with the Fascist party and it's book, he didn't think the quote was much of a stretch and it was not impossible for him to have said it. Fascism isn't "free market" corporatism it is a merging of the state and the corporations; it seems to be like communism from the outside especially since both inherently require lots of authoritarianism and on that spectrum they very similar to each other... It's a matter of perspective and priority/philosophy that differentiates it from it's perceived opposite.
I'm frequently pointing people to PoliticalCompass.org because there is no binary or even linear political scale. Simply because you are against communism it doesn't make you the opposite... besides, the opposite of communism is not fascism, but economic anarchy (the most free market possible...which never lasts just like communism because it's so unstable it falls apart... imbalance happens caused by the system which break the system from the start; either system. Even the most free market, the black market is never really free within it's own domain. )
Every system sold to the masses is based around basic socialism which is the argument that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Even free market Randians use the same argument, that more people are better off with their system so you should choose it over those "unrealistic" others and naturally they add additional appeals, premises and argument to that.
All systems are headed for shake up so inventing a lot in them is a waste of time; once robotics and AI surpass nearly every human job the economics and political schemes fail because they were built around assumptions that will be altered. I think the transition is going to resemble holy wars because a lot of these systems are at religious levels. (Just look at the Christians freaking out at this new pope preaching actual Christian values because it contradicts their other stronger political beliefs.)
Doesn't everybody learn from experience about jumping into fads at some point?
Is this just a problem for new IT being given power too soon or am I wrong and we have a lot of IT people who never learn?
It is being stalled and will continue to be for a little while longer. No, it's not completely stalled but it could be moving much faster than it is. I have a hard time believing Tar sands is economical at $40 / bl. I've never heard that low an estimate before. I remember when fracking was getting wonderful estimates and they ended up losing $ when higher more realistic numbers came out. (fracking is still cheap... although they leak so much doing it cheaply it does more harm than coal does. responsible fracking is much more costly; deciding on a compromise and transition scheme is tricky and the ideal compromise can't be done because of politics and selfish voters.)
I didn't discuss natural gas or H2.
Fascism is corporatism! Learn some history.
Governments bossing around corporations is at the opposite side.
Furthermore, if you believe it is a democratic government then the government is "we" and therefore "we" collectively are exercising our control not losing it.
Harrison Ford always pimps the movies he is in when they are coming out. Just recall or go look it up. Since it's in the contract and he is essentially PAID to promote it all he can do is soften the required praise he gives. After Indie 4 he probably feels the need for stronger support since his taste is continues to prove not so great.
Killing the messenger:
It still applies just not in a clear way that fits with the name of the fallacy. The body of work has nothing to do with the author's unrelated actions; it would be a red herring except it has an irrelevant connection (the messenger; which is why it's not called, "kill the by-stander." In this case the messenger is his body of work and the message is his personal behavior.)
Parent disagrees with Physics?
Parent acts as if MIT is removing pornography videos. The disagreement is with the professors words online that are NOT in the educational materials taken down. Written materials only have his NAME, audio has his VOICE, videos have his IMAGE. Want to remove an ugly statue? Put his name on it!
I don't want to associate with MIT at all because they had a former Professor who harassed some people. Yeah, nobody wants anything to do with MIT...
The "right" will fight all alternative power like they have ALWAYS DONE no matter what deals you give them today. Extremists don't give up.
With a growing industry with more lobbyists the alternatives sway the "right" (and "left") a little bit. The entrenched powers DO NOT want there enemies empowered; the unequal footing they have must be maintained. The "right" in this case is not actually extreme they are just the most corrupt on this issue. I guarantee they will shift when the $ moves in the other direction.
What needs to be done for progress is to drag the opposition kicking and screaming forward so over time they'll adapt and shift to new kinds of fear mongering after all their nay saying proves false. It has been done before (slavery, civil rights, introducing min wage, banning child labor, weekends off, etc.) Now with civil gay marriage all the straight civil marriages are not ending plus we are not surrounded in bestiality and pedophiles either. After the fear proves empty (and some more old people die) then we'll have gay Republicans will be demanding we ban Atheists from adopting children. It'll happen. History rhymes.
There is no real left or right paradigm; it is an illusion, like in the book Flat Land or the film The Matrix. It's at least 2 dimensional: up/down and left/right. The "far left" today doesn't even get press coverage - the Democratic party doesn't represent them; just tries to sucker them for votes. see http://politicalcompass.org/
Characterizing the correct answer as left/right is ignoring the whole problem and debating empty propaganda.
Keystone helps sell shale oil cheaper. You just buy into the defeatist propaganda of the corporations to stand to gain (along with your so called "right" who were purchased and some "left" also who were purchased. The real reason lawyers make good politicians is they argue whatever position their boss wants like they believe it themselves.)
Higher costs for shale will delay it; hopefully, long enough to address demand with cheaper alternatives or enough sanity to ban it... Asbestos is cheap and we stopped using that! Assuming that oil is going to burn is as foolish as keeping the asbestos mines open in the middle of that debate (which was settled in science years before politics caught up; thank the vested interest lobby...) The cynical and wise strategic move is to STALL it out as long as possible so they don't invest in more expensive alternative routes - making it even less cost effective when keystone is stopped. That strategy does the most to stop them. (note: I'm not saying Obama's clever. It is a really clever plan and he just happens to be doing the same thing, so far.)
Extremists are never happy; don't know why you think giving each something they want is going to change anything!
Removing links is a form of censorship. In theory, nothing online ever disappears completely but it can move into extreme obscurity to rarely ever be seen again. His connection to MIT is historical fact and the products of their collaboration shouldn't be removed to please the thought police. It makes it harder to find or more importantly, much more difficult to DISCOVER when it's censored. Being a university, they are supposed to encourage discovery-- doubly so for a famous University known for discoveries trying to do more than just coast on past success.
EXACTLY. I love subpixel anti-aliasing so I won't rotate the display until that finally works but I've wanted to for years. My 2nd display is 4:3 and I've repaired it twice to keep it going. I'm largely waiting for enough idiots to buy UHD TVs to drive prices down (because those only look good in the store, when you sit 3m away you can't see the extra pixels but as a monitor I can put it to practical use.)
The U.S. might be better than Canada in this example; however, in the U.S. the legal system, due process, and rule of law are mostly just buzzwords with little actual meaning. Snowden's leaks continue to prove it.
So now we've become so extreme that the Universities that were guardians of free thinking have become the thought police and tools for censorship. Aiding vengeance of the political elite (corporations being some of the biggest but that's another topic) upon students it should be defending... I'm specifically thinking of Aaron Swartz where MIT was not an innocent party. Sounds far more governmental than like how a University should function, doesn't it??
I don't care if he was a rapist or serial killer! Where is the philosophy department when you need it?? (The only practical thing they are good for is defending freedom; aside from teaching.) Lets throw out everything NASA ever did under Wernher von Braun because he was a Nazi! If you only forbid work done during the "crime" then you have to throw out all the rocketry work he did for Germany and that kind of thinking would have had him completely passed over for working for NASA at all (because they'd not know his credentials since that info would have gone down the memory hole.)
People now are so fragile they can't even hear unpleasant news. I've been in hostile environments and was severely bullied so naturally most the stuff I see people complain about looks like pathetic wimps wanting attention as victims... appealing to the self righteous egotism of others looking to compensate / cover for their own hypocrisy which they are unable to face (because that again would be unpleasant... no wonder people want drugs over actual therapy!)
Being gay was a crime and to most people it's still a horrible sin against god. That didn't stop computer science; but today one has to wonder if those attitudes prevailed today how much we'd be set back?
How about having the government properly regulate the peoples' bandwidth instead of just acting as an auction house and industry lobbyist. (Wheeler was and the last guy now has his job! tag team!)
Government should digitize and drive everything as packets. Become the infrastructure like the highway system. Charge rates for bandwidth use so anybody could be a cell company - since it just costs for packets over the network. Same with TV as well-- in fact, TV should have been done in a similar way. Sure it would have delayed the transition.... perhaps this is the next generation transition we should be designing today! Wide band devices which can use all the TV and cell bandwidth to send IPv6 packets or something similar. At least we could have physics and science manage the system instead of whatever the owners can hack together in their purchased space.
Note: I realize with the use of the loaded word "socialist" I've just lost most American readers.