Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:In other news (Score 0) 154

by s.petry (#48218631) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin At Tsinghua University In Beijing

wtf. I wrote a _short_ paragraph and you really had trouble reading the first sentence? I'll quote the sentence in bold so that you can't miss it. Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all?

Need me to be more clear than that even? He does not do much to "run" that company because he has experts on the payroll to do that for him! This is why he could take a very long honeymoon, can hang out in DC with politicians, and can do all sorts of other things other than "run a company".

You are trying to make it sound like the guy works his dick off, and that is the complete opposite of reality. His main job is to A) Have money. and B) Hire people to make him more money. and finally C) Fire anyone that fails at B..

That is not to say that he didn't put in hours before facebook went public, but working hard is something that the majority of people do every day and they are not treated as special celebrities for doing so. This particular person happened to be on the better end of an IPO deal that most people don't get, and that's not talent or smarts.. it's luck and connections.

Back to my original point, when you don't have to work 40-60 hours a week and you can hire tutors, it is not surprising that this person can learn a 2nd language. It does not indicate in any way that a person is special or smart. I work with people that are fluent in 4-5 languages while working 40-60 hour weeks, and those people are special in my opinion (which is why I started learning Russian, I'm jealous of their linguistic abilities!).

Comment: Re:Wrong on all accounts! (Score 1) 210

by s.petry (#48218549) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

Since you lack the knowledge you are obviously in no position to ask those questions or make those insinuations. If you would have taken an alternative approach and asked for sources of the knowledge, I would have provided the same information. I still don't get the feeling that you want the knowledge, but rather you wish to make believe that you have it.

Living in make believe is not necessarily a bad thing, assuming you maintained your fantasy in private. In public where it can dupe others into a false reality is quite different, and I openly and actively discourage that action.

Comment: One more thing (Score 1) 210

by s.petry (#48218243) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question.

Well, I don't believe this is a question at all. This demonstrates very well what people have been saying for years. The R and D candidates are merely props put up by the same "elites" so that people get the illusion that they are really voting for something. I'm guessing that Schmidt was more sloppy than the better players making it this easy to see, and that is usually related to ego.

Comment: Wrong on all accounts! (Score 1) 210

by s.petry (#48218207) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, D.C., where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury.

In 1979, Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his Ph.D. before joining Stanford/ Berkeley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983.

Sun had significant contracts with the U.S. government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch.
By the start of 2001, over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000.

This shows a bit more than "getting involved in politics".

As for item 2 and 3, a large portion of the article is describing Google's "Think/Do Tank" which operates way beyond "do no evil". The groups has potential involvement in numerous nefarious activities, and numerous connections to the US State Department and other US Officials.

Your last statement is a complete farce, and I'd suggest reading the article and actually studying what the Bilderberg conference is about, as opposed to the blanket dismissal without evidence. There has been plenty of great journalism done on this conference, and no it's not just some cool hotel hangout.

Comment: Re:Goolge is helping... (Score 1) 210

by s.petry (#48218101) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

Your statement would be true if the information was dumped to the public, but completely false if the information was provided to a Government for the purposes of squashing dissent. The latter is the concern, not the former.

Surely you could recover if someone leaked an unfortunate browsing habit of yours. It would take some time to blow over, and of course you would be embarrassed.

On the other hand, if you had knowledge or beliefs that run counter to an administration and could be targeted with say.. planting pornographic images of children on your computer.. you are now silenced and behind bars.

Comment: Re:Goolge is helping... (Score 1) 210

by s.petry (#48218079) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

The "elites" have the best education money can buy, they have the best advisers money can buy, and the free time to research what ever they need because they don't have to work 40-60 hours a week to make ends meet.

Given that little bit of information let me ask who exactly is not that smart. You or them? Just to drive the point home, lets play along with a few more questions.

How many people would an elite group have to control in order to really run the country? They don't need to control each person individually, they just need to control enough to maintain media so that they could build up or destroy a person. Nearly all media is already controlled by 3 people in the USA. It does not take manually handling politicians to control them, it takes money and errand runners. Given that the President, Congress, and Senate is less than a thousand people, you only need a few runners for each of the people in the conspiracy. They don't need to control State politics, just few Governors is all. California and New York have a big enough population to concern people, Wyoming on the other hand does not have enough population to be a concern.

Further, you don't need to direct every detail to get the result you want. Bits and pieces here and there is called compartmentalization, and we have known about this for a very long time. Agencies within the Government practice this with a high degree of precision, such as the projects that built the SR71, F117, etc... You can see it in action after the fact so you know it exists, yet you somehow want to claim that it could only work with building some of the most complex machines the world has ever seen and could not happen in politics. Come now, that's just idiocy.

As to Conspiracy in general, take the TV show Survivor. In the first series people almost immediately started conspiring with others to win. After the first series, the conspiracies became the focal point of the show. If people would conspire within a few days to win a million dollars, you don't believe it's possible that they would conspire when the stakes are much higher? This is also idiocy.

One of the most important things I ever read regarding politics was this.

FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of avenges, half of the events affecting our nation's well being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove 'bat we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.

In the past people have commented simply to discourage people from reading the book, so I won't be surprised to see that again. The book is from 1971 and titled "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen.

Labeling people "Conspiracy Theorist" has happened since the same years. Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable question, label and belittle. If that does not work simply censor and ignore. (Also covered in the same book).

I believe you need to try harder to discourage people from making connections which are easy to see. Dump the Troll handbook and actually attempt to hold rational discourse and dialogue with people.

Comment: Yup, that was the fine (Score 1) 218

by s.petry (#48217715) Attached to: Tech Firm Fined For Paying Imported Workers $1.21 Per Hour

An anonymous tip prompted the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate the case, which resulted in more than $40,000 in back wages paid to the eight employees and a fine of $3,500 for Electronics for Imaging.

In this case, should not the HR people and management be facing criminal charges for slavery? Forcing people to work 120hr work weeks and paying them an illegally low wage strikes me as something that should be sitting on a prosecutors desk. IANAL, but I'd be interested in hearing from one. A 120hr work week is an 18 hour day 7 days a week.

Comment: Re:In other news (Score -1, Flamebait) 154

by s.petry (#48217577) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin At Tsinghua University In Beijing
Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all? Will you next you will try and tell me how he wrote all the code for his site by himself? Wholly fuck, nothing like pandering to the celebs. Do you think you are going to get a great paying job by trying to convince the world about his miraculous ability to learn part of 1 language? I really and truly hope that you try to hold your breath until that happens.

Comment: In other news (Score 5, Insightful) 154

by s.petry (#48217109) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin At Tsinghua University In Beijing

A guy worth many billions of dollars can pay for someone to teach them a language, and has time to learn the language. Who'da thunk it possible? What a grand and glorious day for all of the people of the world.. er wait a minute...

The proceeding message was brought to you by a cynical old guy who learned to read/write and speak 2 1/4th additional languages (German, Spanish *and currently working on Russian*) on his own time without billions of dollars to do so. All while raising a kid as a single parent and working full time. Sorry, he's nothing special in terms of intelligence and definitely lacking in morals. Being high on his ego does nothing for me.. Next!

Comment: Except that (Score 2) 501

by s.petry (#48216065) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

What you claim happens is absolutely false. People are not simply claiming that women should be treated like people, they are claiming that:
* Women get treated worse than everyone else on the Internet
Therefor the solution is to censor the Internet.

Due to societal pressures there is no way to prove such a claim, and it's completely not relevant to the solution. Censoring the internet would not prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. If that was true, we would have no crime in any country where a person has a home address. Yet we have lots of crime, and it does not relate directly to anonymity.

The crusade has nothing to do with protecting women's rights. In fact I'll argue that it has nothing to do with catching people that are behaving badly toward women either. If you have doubts, answer why online predators and human trafficking are either the same or worse today (in scale) than say 20 years ago before all of the laws alleging to catch on-line predators.

Many of the laws claimed to protect children have had the exact opposite effect, of protecting criminals. Meanwhile innocent people with good intentions have been harmed by these same laws.

Since we can demonstrate that the laws won't change the situation, you should be asking who benefits if laws are passed.

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...