I ran across this recently. It’s actually very interesting, and informative.
Enjoy, and make your own assumptions, but base it on real data.
I ran across this recently. It’s actually very interesting, and informative.
Enjoy, and make your own assumptions, but base it on real data.
It’s a fair question. People worry about cute birds, or tigers, or elephants… But what about viruses?
They carry genetic material as well, that could very well be useful to us as a species? Yes they kill and weaken us, but so do Tigers…
Seriously, what if we find out that viruses are crucial to our survival? But only after we have killed that one off?
Shouldn’t Viruses have the same protections as higher order creatures?
Make no mistake about it, there is not one country that is truly a friend of the US. Much like a CEO, once you are on the top there are no friends in your world. Sure there are people you get along with (UK, Canada, etc) but more are out for your blood (Russia, China, Middle East, etc).
So why does the US Military still rely on technology from abroad? Why does it allow that technology to become a critical path to our operations or why does it allow that technology to even touch sensitive data or computers or???
The most recent example is the fact that the US Military uses a Russian companies technology to protect it’s computers. Seriously? Isn’t that like letting the fox into the hen house? I mean even from the outside it doesn’t take a genius to see that Russia would like better than nothing for the US to fail or to fall into disrespect or for them to harm the US in anyway they are capable. So what happens? The US Military allows a Russian companies technology to protect it’s computers. Oh yeah, talk about trojan horse. Let’s see the software that they are relying on protecting from virus’s spawned not only by criminals but also by nation states (Russia, cough), to have full access to the very same computers that those virus are targeting. Kaspersky is a potential threat.
It doesn’t take a security expert or a computer expert to understand that this make little to no sense, and is actually very very dangerous…
Perhaps the US government needs to spend sometime brushing up the laws and rules that govern who you can and cannot buy from. Otherwise we might as well put all of our most secure data on a thumb drive and drop it off at the Russian and Chinese Embassy’s.
Wake UP and Smell the Coffee…
So apparently Obama was strong on gun control and trying new ways to inflict that control on law abiding citizens etc..
The Republican’s were supposed to be against gun control and trying to make sure that the 2nd amendment stayed free of obstructions.
So how do you balance this PR with the above?
Federal Gun Prosecutions Up 23 Percent After Sessions Memo
07/28/2017 12:00 AM EDT
Today, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that, following the memorandum from Attorney General Sessions to prioritize firearm prosecutions, the number of defendants charged with unlawful possession of a firearm increased nearly 23 percent in the second quarter of 2017 (2,637) from the same time period in 2016 (2,149).
The reason people use the internet is the diversity of the information and what can be found in exploring. You will note I didn’t put Google in here, even though some of their policies are anti small business / website. So if you believe that people go to Facebook to enjoy their friends and learn about what they are doing, you are likely right, I question if they go there to see things that don’t otherwise know about, ie; explore. Do people go to Amazon to find things to buy, for sure, do they go there to see what their friends are doing or to find more things to buy than what they are interested in? Not very likely.
So my warning to both of these companies is. Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Facebook and Amazon are basically creating war on small websites and alternative ideologies. Amazon’s sucking down ad revenues from Google is one thing. Making sure that your add gets shown alongside a similar product that they are selling is entirely different.
Facebook deciding what’s “correct” for you to see or not, is not very friendly to the openness of the marketplace of ideas out there. For example if you are selling tactical gear Facebook can and has determined that you can not advertise there. Obviously their prerogative, but is it good for the internet as a whole?
I posit to you that if Amazon and Facebook win the majority of the ad dollars as strange as this sounds it will spell the end of the internet as we know it. It increases the chance that the internet becomes a bar and a store, and that’s pretty much it. It’s great that both companies are successful, but they should stop and think about what’s best for the environment they live in, and censorship and competition against your advertisers is not likely best for that marketplace of ideas and interests.
Things continue down this path and the internet becomes a bar and a store, then the interest in that is going to wane and die. That would not be good for Facebook and Amazon. What do they do when their audience gets bored because there are only two places to go on the internet, Facebook and Amazon?
So it is my understanding the a US company can not completely own a company in China. Ie; if Google opens a Google China, a Chinese firm or individual needs to own a portion of that entity in order to do business in China. It is my further understanding that the portion owned needs to be 51%.
Given that, why are we allowing Chinese companies to come in and completely buy a US company? OR open an entity in the US that is not 51% owned by a US corporation or individual?
Seems lopsided and another example of our stupid government not understanding business or what’s good for US business.
Meantime we allow Chinese companies to patent and trademark in the US when they have ZERO intention of honoring those agreements that we already have in place.
My question here is why are we allowing this as a nation when they are not allowing us to do so in their country?
Note every country has a right to do as they please. But the US should note that and respond similarly. It’s not like you are starting a war if you simply state. Look you don’t allow US companies to outright own a entity in China, so no Chinese National or Company can do that in the US.
The US reaches out and forces other Countries to do as the US wants them to do in other instances. For example Canada forces US citizens to follow US laws concerning corporate ownership etc even though the rules in Canada for their citizens are not the same. Doesn’t make sense that the US would not reach out and simply apply that strong arming to China as well.
Wake up and Smell the Coffee…
So I know many of you watched the debates last night and are still likely digesting what happened.
So let me give you my two cents.
Both Hillary and Trump are not truthful people. Both try to cover up things they have done wrong.
It seems to me that their attitude is admit nothing and deny all. Rather than one of. Acceptance that we are not all perfect, and that mistakes happen, even to the best of us. In fact the best of us admit to mistakes and then work to never go there again.
Give me someone who has learned from their mistakes not someone who continues to deny that which is a mistake.
1. Hillary made at the minimum a HUGE mistake in keeping emails on her private server. What was she thinking, that she could keep them secret from the people she is serving? Had to be because she certainly knew that the Russians and Chinese were hacking our government servers daily for the last several years, years that she was intimately involved with the government at the highest levels. So why not live up to the fact that it was a mistake and that she knew better, but was hoping to keep it a secret…? At least then it goes away as a question in peoples minds and then they can decide for them selves how important that mistake is to them.
2. Trump and his birther comments, and taxes. Really? You can’t just stand up and say, look to the best of my knowledge that the time it was what I thought. Because of my insistence the certificate was produced and I am happy to find out that I was wrong. (NOTE everyone is wrong sometimes) On the taxes, beautiful move on saying he would release them as soon as HIllary releases the 33,000 deleted emails.. 🙂 But he could have put all of that to rest by simply saying, the system is broken and I know better than most how it’s broken and if elected I intend to make changes that will make it harder for those with money to get away with paying nearly no taxes. And further on the comment about his loan for his father? Who really cares? All of our parents have helped us out. Some more than others because they were able to do that. Don’t you think all parents would loan their kids as much money as they could to help them start a business etc..? It’s not a story, yet Trump chooses to make it a story by his rambling nonsensical monologue about it.
So folks, it has NEVER paid to lie. Once you are caught it’s all over. Instead own up to it. Hell even Bill Clinton, eventually owned up to his mistakes and came clean. Likely not totally, but enough to put it all to rest and move on from.
Stop lying. Stop trying to think that “We the People” are as stupid as you seem to think we are. Stop listing to your advisors and actually go out and listen to what the people honestly think and say about you and your competition…
Just Wake up and Smell the Coffee…
On the order of mixing beer and guns, is the mixing of dodgy water craft and wine…
In case you want to take your life in your own hands, here is where to go:
So at the DNC we had some outing of some bad juju regarding how the nasty dirty process of finding a presidential candidate happens. Sorta of like “I want to eat sausage but I don’t want to know how it was/is made” thing. Same thing with this. We the people just don’t want to know how the parties elect who is going to run for president. We just don’t. Because it gives lie to the whole democratic process. Because, well, it’s not democratic and it’s very very dirty.
This was first noted in the Trump run up to nomination and even afterwards, with folks still sputtering because they couldn’t beat him and turned to the normal insider dirty tricks and got called out.
Now we see a similar pattern at the DNC. Again, no surprise and actually no dirt. At least not anymore than it already is. Speaks for itself as they say.
But here’s what chaffs my ass, that a supporter of former DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz said. Read this quote and think when was the last time a leader stood up and said, wasn’t me it was my people. Ok but then who is responsible for those people? Do they walk in off the street and just do things? Do the reflect the mood and tone of their boss, are they rogues? Even if they are, they are still the responsibility of the chief. It’s always been that way. Roosevelt had a sign that said “The buck stops here” meaning he was ultimately responsible. But apparently in political land the leader isn’t responsible for the bad things, only the good things that their people do. So here now the quote…
“This is just a bump in the road. I think she was completely impartial in this process. Now, some of the people who worked for her sent out some completely inappropriate e-mails, and for that, they should be punished, not Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”, said Steve Effman, the former mayor of Sunrise and a longtime friend of DWS. (this taken from here: www.esquire.com Debbie Wasserman Schultz)
So I get it: the message we send to our kids is: it’s ok that when you are in charge of a team that your people do things that are wrong, and don’t worry you aren’t responsible. Really? In the past, people who were leaders stood up for their people and lived and died by the teams actions, they didn’t cut someone loose and distance themselves… So now we are teaching that you can hire folks and lead them but if they do something wrong it’s all on them. Not on the leader for controlling things, for setting the tone and direction of folks, for weeding out the bad ones and keeping those who are on the same page… If you believe that, I have some swamp err good land in Florida to sell you, and a great bridge in NY…
So wake up here, get with it. Leaders have to stand for something, and have to be responsible for things good or bad. The faster this country learns that not everyone is perfect and that mistakes happen the better, but even better will be when folks learn that to lead is just that, to be out front taking the shots, being in the arena, and standing for something other than, OOHHH I didn’t say that, don’t punish me, but punish the person I hired directed and lead…. yeah.. That doesn’t work in my world.
You lead, you take the responsibility, good or bad. Stand there and deliver my friends. Enter that arena, but do so with the knowledge that YOU and only you are responsible.
So reading on the internet suggests two things. One that Testosterone leads to aggression or does not lead to aggression. Science is such an exact umm well err science… So let’s take a look at how this comes about.
First study done was done on women and lead to the conclusion that it increased aggression in men. Not sure I follow. But let’s see where this leads us. Down the path of assumption and myth.
In this paper: Elsevier. “Testosterone in healthy men increases their brains’ response to threat.”
ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 August 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140811124630.htm>. right in the first paragraph the author states. “Testosterone, a steroid hormone, is well known to contribute to aggressive behavior in males, but the neural circuits through which testosterone exerts these effects have not been clear.” So without any citation at all, the author here states that it contributes to aggressive behavior.
Now same website… Different author.
University of Zurich. “Testosterone does not induce aggression, study shows.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 December 2009. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm>.
Here the issue.
When you actually read the whole first paper, it doesn’t say the observed aggressive behavior in the subjects, just that their brains reacted faster. Faster to what you might as, faster to an aggressive looking face. The second paper states that testosterone seems to help the brain function better in social situations. Enhancing it’s ability to assess the situation faster and better. That there is no evolutionary pressure to attack first and ask questions later, that actually the ability to work things out quicker is the win.
So what can we believe here? I don’t know anything for a fact. But I do know that the first author brought their own preconceived ideas and prejudice to the table when writing their paper. No where does the experiment that they were running prove aggression, just that your brain reacts faster to social situations and gets on alert faster when testosterone is present. Big leap to make in a conclusion based on the facts of the paper, that don’t support that conclusion.
Here’s something that is more in line with the results from that paper. For your reading pleasure..
Association for Psychological Science. “Testosterone promotes reciprocity in the absence of competition.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 30 September 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130930113955.htm>.
Here are a few links: