News Stories

[Bri]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Some might be interested to watch this:
Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side?
http://video.pbs.org/video/2160792049

Hmm, unless this is some kind of comedy sketch, it's a clear example why academics shouldn't try to sound like an expert outside of their own field. The guy makes himself ridiculous.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Population control: the rich controlling the poor?

While I agree that the global population is rising too fast to be sustained adequately, I also agree that unequal distribution of resources (gap between rich and poor) has a big effect on this. A huge chunk of the world's poor could survive under decently humane conditions if majority of our resources weren't controlled by the top 5%.

I think that there are two wrong hands here. One is that of what you have mentioned, the other is that many have that crutch mentality that the government should pay for their retirement and provide for them wholly.

The government can only provide opportunities or take them away from you. It is up to the citizen to decide whether to pick one, find another, or burn down the parliament in order to force the government to diversify them.

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Nicolas Sarkozy: Greece should have been denied euro

Let the blame game begin.

Greece, and many other European countries shouldn't have let it come this far in the first place. But without a proper watchdog to keep them in line, no one gave a damn until shit started hitting the fan. And now that it has, it's too late to turn back now.

[Xellos-_^]

Woodford in his time in Tokyo had been digging into four separate acquisitions Olympus had made from 2006 to 2009. Three of the four had already had their assets written down to just a fraction of the nearly $1 billion Olympus paid to buy them. Each of the firms involved in those three cases — a recycling company, a company that makes anti-aging cosmetics, and a company that makes microwave oven-safe food containers — were registered in the Cayman Islands, a famous tax haven in the Caribbean. And all three were dissolved shortly after the deals were done. Extraordinarily, at a press conference on Oct. 27, Olympus executive vice president Hisashi Mori said that the only information his company has about the shareholders of the three are the names of the entities in the Caymans that the payments went to — for example, one called Neo Strategic Venture LP — and bank account numbers. Said Mori: "We know nothing about who they are."
In the fourth case, Woodford discovered that after acquiring Gyrus, a U.K. based medical instruments company, for $2.2 billion in 2008, top management in Olympus paid, according to Woodford, $687 million as a "transaction fee" to two investment bankers — a payment that also went into a Cayman Islands account that also subsequently was dissolved. Merger and acquisition bankers on Wall Street can earn hefty fees for sizeable deals. But in this case, the "fee" was a third of the size of the transaction — a stupefying amount given that a typical fee is about 1% of the deal's size. "Where do I sign up for their business," a Tokyo based M&A banker cracked after hearing the news.
....
Woodford's use of the word "sinister" plainly implies that he suspects criminal elements may have been involved in this saga. It's an explosive allegation, to be sure, but sufficiently credible that both the FBI in the United States and Scotland Yard's Serious Crimes unit in London are now reportedly investigating (Woodford has turned over his documentation to both agencies). On October 26, with the company's stock price down by more than 50%, Kikukawa resigned as chairman. The stock rebounded 23% in response. But, at a press conference the next day, Kikukawa's successor, Shuichi Takayama, again defended the $687 million payment Olympus had made in connection with the Gyrus deal, saying the payment was above board and appropriate. (Takayama did not appear to dispute the size of the payment; earlier in the scandal, an Olympus spokesman said the fee paid in the Gyrus deal was just half the size of what Woodford claimed.) The same day, Japanese press reports said that Tokyo's Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission had begun its own investigation into the affair. Reuters reported that Takayama was asked about a Yakuza connection and responded, "I am absolutely not aware of any such thing."
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...098115,00.html

So that was the Company Rock was working for.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Probably true but anyway, now the important fact is to correct/addapt to the situation, not to say what they should hade done.

That's pretty much was what he insisted on. But I guess it's less interesting.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That's pretty much was what he insisted on. But I guess it's less interesting.

A declaration is more direct, have more punch, it do not require moch thought for the listener ; the media like that. A question is usualy more important but when the media cared about that ?

[SaintessHeart]

He is a snob, he is too rich, but unfortunately, he is right :

[flying ^]

... what an interesting outlook for the 2nd half of this decade

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by flying ^

... what an interesting outlook for the 2nd half of this decade

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html

It is almost the only economic power with a fertility rate above 2.0 - and therefore the ability to outgrow debt - in sharp contrast to the demographic decay awaiting Japan, China, Korea, Germany, Italy, and Russia.

Vexx, you have to thank your superiors (whatever the NWO's name is) for selling sex as a commodity in US for this.

[Solace]

The switch in advantage to the US is relative. It does not imply a healthy US recovery.

Hidden in the incredibly optimistic piece that speaks of nothing but money and profits, is this little gem. And sadly, he's right. Those jobs will come back, those companies will "repatriate", because the dollar has tanked so much and the economic downturn has forced every other nation in the world to use the dollar as reserve that at this point you'd be stupid not to. Sure, you got some pesky regulations and a few protests to deal with, but tunes will change as you swing back into the country offering the nectar of sweet sweet jobs. Soon all of those silly plebes will forget all about things like "the environment" and "debts" as you show them the light of easy money, cheap credit, and those finer things in life that rich people enjoy, like expensive luxury items and homes that you'd never be able to afford otherwise.

It's alright. You're only borrowing against the future survival of your species, but that's not your problem is it? After all, you're just not a human being if you don't have an iPad and cheap gas for your SUV.

I'm not sure what sums up humans more, this video:

or this one:

[Ithekro]

My thoughts...If we can get on an upswing again, perhaps funds can be shifted to technology more easily than when the economy is depressed. One of the big complaints I had in the mid-2000s was that we are "running out of time" so to speak. Not so much that the world is coming to an end, but the idea that we are running out of resources to use on large scale projects, and we'd be down to subsistance level for generations. Without a large project scale of resources, we will never get off this planet. As pretty as it mght be, it is but one planet. It goes...we all go. And then we become nothing, as no one will remember any of it...unless they find the Golden Disks in the Voyager probes I guess.

The idea is not simple, because we know it will take a leap to get our species not only to other world in our own solar system, but an even greater leap to get us to other star systems so that we might be able to avoid the death of our species (or at least our history if we evolve into something else before the Sun dies) by populating worlds in other star systems.

We even have people looking for potentally habitable world already...and they are thinking they are finding them...or at least worlds that have a chance of being habitable due to their distances from their own stars (so the temperature is within the range where water can be a liquid).

But if we "run out" of resources...we can't make that leap...if someone figures it out afterward, we won't have the fuel to make it work.

That's my worry. Long term as it may be.

[Sugetsu]

Yeah I am sure that a locus swarm will be able to find a way out of the planet before it destroys itself... And hopefully there will be many more habitable worlds out there that it will be able to suck dry before moving on.

[Ithekro]

That depends entirely on if we leave Earth dead. Being a rather sentimental and economic minded species we would likely keep Earth from dying. Not just because it is our home, but because even with all we do to the place, we enjoy it. Also those in power would likely remain on Earth since they would still hold power there, as oppose to on newly colonized worlds where the new locals might take things into their own hands...much like colonies of the past empires. Also since the concept of trade appeals to us through all civilizations, the likelihood is that Earth will remain a Human trade center in any interstellar civilization we might create. Especialy if it happens to be centrally located if we expand in a sphere shape.

We have patterns of movement, and even the oldest regions of civilization are still inhabited. Things still grow in all those places. 5,000 years and counting. 5,000 years from now, they will likely still be there.

What I'm worried about it either the random giant rock nearly killing us all, some unknown calamity that ruins our technology for a few generations to perhaps hundreds of years, and the extreme long term problem of the Sun going Red Giant and cooking the surface of the Earth off (that that is a very long ways away). Best not to have the entire species in one place...so at least some of it will survive.

Otherwise...what was the point of humanity?

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Vexx, you have to thank your superiors (whatever the NWO's name is) for selling sex as a commodity in US for this.

I think it has more to do with immigration. Lots of people still come here to settle and have kids, and a lot of the high fertility is among new/invisible residents. If you want, here's a read from the US census bureau for year 2008's census.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

My thoughts...If we can get on an upswing again, perhaps funds can be shifted to technology more easily than when the economy is depressed. One of the big complaints I had in the mid-2000s was that we are "running out of time" so to speak. Not so much that the world is coming to an end, but the idea that we are running out of resources to use on large scale projects, and we'd be down to subsistance level for generations. Without a large project scale of resources, we will never get off this planet. As pretty as it mght be, it is but one planet. It goes...we all go. And then we become nothing, as no one will remember any of it...unless they find the Golden Disks in the Voyager probes I guess.

The idea is npt simple, because we know it will take a leap to get out species not only to other world in our own solar system, but an even greater leap to get us to other star systems so that we might be able to avoid the death of our species (or at least our history if we evolve into something else before the Sun dies) by populating worlds in other star systems.

We even have people looking for potentally habitable world already...and they are thinking they are finding them...or at least worlds that have a chance of being habitable due to their distances from their own stars (so the temperature is within the range where water can be a liquid).

But if we "run out" of resources...we can't make that leap...if someone figures it out afterward, we won't have the fuel to make it work.

That's my worry. Long term as it may be.

What resources are you referring to? If it's about population, I can assure you that people will stop having babies when they can't even feed themselves enough to carry one to full term. If it's about food, well, we still have plenty of arable land to destroy to create plots of agriculture, and many techniques for growing in efficient and semi-artificial conditions (the food glut and waste in developed nations notwithstanding). If it's fuel, we are getting better at exploiting sources that aren't just decaying reserves of solar-powered buildup from the ground (even though we aren't close to depleting those yet). If it's about oil and the array of products derived from oil, well, we're teasing the same plastics and compounds out of stuff we can modify and grow. If it's about precious metals, well you can look at this circular from the USGS about metal production, use, and recycling that goes on in the US.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That depends entirely on if we leave Earth dead. Being a rather sentimental and economic minded species we would likely keep Earth from dying. Not just because it is our home, but because even with all we do to the place, we enjoy it. Also those in power would likely remain on Earth since they would still hold power there, as oppose to on newly colonized worlds where the new locals might take things into their own hands...much like colonies of the past empires. Also since the concept of trade appeals to us through all civilizations, the likelihood is that Earth will remain a Human trade center in any interstellar civilization we might create. Especialy if it happens to be centrally located if we expand in a sphere shape.

We have patterns of movement, and even the oldest regions of civilization are still inhabited. Things still grow in all those places. 5,000 years and counting. 5,000 years from now, they will likely still be there.

What I'm worried about it either the random giant rock nearly killing us all, some unknown calamity that ruins our technology for a few generations to perhaps hundreds of years, and the extreme long term problem of the Sun going Red Giant and cooking the surface of the Earth off (that that is a very long ways away). Best not to have the entire species in one place...so at least some of it will survive.

Otherwise...what was the point of humanity?

That's really long-term, but you would have to simulate how an intergalactic civilization would act or what technologies they have to tie worlds together before wondering if a few people on one pebble can hold any meaningful influence or enforcement over another pebble light years away. And what need would there be for a point? We all live and have our own unique experiences and lives. Being able to live and think and coalesce thought between people and between different periods in time seems meaningful in and of itself. Well, for me.

[ganbaru]

Generators seized from NY Wall Street protesters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79R4LK20111028

[flying ^]

#Occupy's new tactic... in pictorial



full detail


... when the smoke's cleared and dusts settled, let the professional (left) media enablers do the 'finishing touch' to boost support

[cors8]

Originally Posted by flying ^

#Occupy's new tactic... in pictorial



full detail


... when the smoke's cleared and dusts settled, let the professional (left) media enablers do the 'finishing touch' to boost support

Yes, let's compare unarmed civilians protesting to armed fighters using human shields as cover...

I am sure that same picture can be used to describe the Syrian protesters against their government too. Main difference is the Syrian government will actually shoot anyway.

[MrTerrorist]

Is there a brighter future for white Africans?

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What I'm worried about it either the random giant rock nearly killing us all, some unknown calamity that ruins our technology for a few generations to perhaps hundreds of years, and the extreme long term problem of the Sun going Red Giant and cooking the surface of the Earth off (that that is a very long ways away). Best not to have the entire species in one place...so at least some of it will survive.

Otherwise...what was the point of humanity?

We are the most powerful species in this planet, and like uncle Ben says: with great power comes great responsibility. We have to learn to coexist with other living forms. We are not a herd of herbivores that just moves from grassland to grassland, we actually have the power grow food and survive through harsh weather.

The power that we posses gives us a greater degree of freedom and we have to be smart about how to use it. We can survive meteor impacts with the help of technology, we can distribute food to all people, we can provide shelter to everyone... But only if we act responsibly as human beings.

The problem is that this system encourages individualism and egotism way too much. Everyone is looking out only for himself and his immediate family. With that kind of mentality we will never be able to survive much longer in this planet, let alone achieving some kind of unit cohesion that allows us to develop technology advanced enough to combat an asteroid or travel to the stars. We will be victims of our own power.

The point of humanity is to grow up, to evolve, to become aware of ourselves and the world around us. We got a long ways to go before we know the meaning of the words freedom and responsibility. The question is, do we still have the time?

[andyjay729]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That depends entirely on if we leave Earth dead. Being a rather sentimental and economic minded species we would likely keep Earth from dying. Not just because it is our home, but because even with all we do to the place, we enjoy it. Also those in power would likely remain on Earth since they would still hold power there, as oppose to on newly colonized worlds where the new locals might take things into their own hands...much like colonies of the past empires. Also since the concept of trade appeals to us through all civilizations, the likelihood is that Earth will remain a Human trade center in any interstellar civilization we might create. Especialy if it happens to be centrally located if we expand in a sphere shape.

We have patterns of movement, and even the oldest regions of civilization are still inhabited. Things still grow in all those places. 5,000 years and counting. 5,000 years from now, they will likely still be there.

What I'm worried about it either the random giant rock nearly killing us all, some unknown calamity that ruins our technology for a few generations to perhaps hundreds of years, and the extreme long term problem of the Sun going Red Giant and cooking the surface of the Earth off (that that is a very long ways away). Best not to have the entire species in one place...so at least some of it will survive.

Otherwise...what was the point of humanity?

Humanity has to have a point? We're just animals. We may be "the smart ones" that, for better or worse, became the dominant species of this planet, and we at least try to look out for each other, but does our existence mean anything?

I'm not a full-fledged misanthrope, but I do see a lot of power in unmotivated randomness. The jury's still out on whether hurricanes and tornadoes are generated in part by human-caused global warming, but no one is to blame for earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors, etc.