This article does not include nudity, nor sexually explicit content, but in respect of fragile job market I’m marking this as not-safe-for-work. This article brings up pornography and sexual-intimacy, so secure your job and just read it later.
Preparing Yourself For The Under-Net (Or, Why The Internet Can’t Die).
Goonies never say die.
Well folks, we’ve added another “_____-PA,” bill proposition to the list. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is just a vomited rehash of the failed SOPA/PIPA bills. Yes, these bills threaten your freedom. Yes, they are invasive, and go against everything that the internet has become. Yes, you should call your Congressman, and fight it tooth and nail.
No, The Internet will not become a government regulated “1984-style behemoth,” if it passes.
Let me explain. The Internet is unlike any form of communication that mankind has had, in that it is not a one-way-broadcast-sys
tem. The Internet isn’t a series of tubes and wires; the internet isn’t even a thing. The Internet is the series of connections that are created between people; it is the wink that you give that girl at the bar, it is the boasting story that you tell to your friends the next night. All the Internet does, is allow for everyone (for the rest of time), to see that one night stand, and to create the illusion that everyone online, fervently supports Ron Paul and Anonymous (For the record, I support both…Anon, don’t hax our site pleez).
Should The Feds start to heavily patrol the inter-webs (more than now), there will invariably come a breaking point for the tech fringes of society. This will, in turn, create an underground network between rebels and outsiders; whose sites you can only access via TOR. The public will, albeit slowly, start to move over to this “grey-network,” that is not regulated by any governmental bodies, and the free flow of information will start again, unbridled by any watching eye.
Case 1: The Silk Road. The Silk Road is a pseudo-clandestine site that allows users to purchase all manner of illegal wares: from drugs to automatic weapons. The genius of The Silk Road is that it is only accessible via a TOR enabled browser (ensuring a scrambled IP address, and https session). Anonymity is further enforced by the method of currency; encrypted tokens that display neither the purchaser nor the seller. The Silk Road is also constantly on the move; one must know the correct “password,” or IP Address to ping, in order to access the site.
Case 2: Occupy Wallstreet. In a recent Times article, Keith Wagstaff wrote on the rise of “DIY Wi-Fi Networks,” in which activists used flying drones to broadcast mobile routers, that couldn’t be shut down by local law enforcement. In effect, interested rebels could become part of constantly shifting networks, 
that utilize guerilla tactics of ‘hit, then hide.”
“Our project is able to swarm into formation, broadcast its pirate network, and then disperse, escaping detection, only to reform elsewhere,”
In the words of Anonymous “The Internet is Free.” It requires neither broadcast stations, nor expensive equipment. If it is intercepted, it can pack up and move on somewhere else.
The flow of information cannot be stopped; The Internet can always be rooted.
[Be] Better Than Ezra [Klein] – The Sound of One Hand Clapping
I had intended to follow up on my previous post, but Ezra Klein – welcome to my crosshairs. I have never heard of you until today… and I don’t like you[r opinions]. Here is the statement that robbed me of my precious free time:
“The federal government can choose to hire, fire or hold employment steady. It can give states money to keep employees on the job, or it can withhold that money. So the fact that the public sector is losing jobs isn’t just a problem, but a problem that the federal government could, with 100 percent certainty, fix.”
Really? Really?
Let me point out that the Federal Government is not a uniform entity; and it most definitely lacks the ability, unilaterally,to choose to hire, fire or hold employment steady. Simply stating that public-sector job loss (aka Austerity) is a problem, does not transform your opinion into a fact, or grant your opinion the ability to stand without explanation. And while we’re on it, when talking about public policy, there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee or certainty (see also, my previous post).
Here’s another golden nugget from one of Erza’s articles. In the piece, Ezra “runs some numbers,” pulls out a public sector employment trend from the previous recessions – 1981, 1990, 2001 – and compares them to the recent recession figures, observing that in previous recessions the Federal Government increased the number of public sector jobs, while the current trend has been a reduction – a 600k job reduction.
According to Ezra, if the Federal government would simply increase federal assistance to states and add back the 600k jobs that have been cut… well, our unemployment rate would drop. <insert sarcastic eye roll>. If you stretch his article you can infer that he doesn’t believe in the Federal Government’s ability to improve the private sector job market (perhaps he is thinking of the Bank Bailouts?), so instead they should focus on the one aspect of the job market they have near direct control over – public sector jobs.
Okay, Ezra, kudos on putting it so clearly… If A (the Federal Government) gave funding to B (Local and State governments) to create/reinstate public-sector jobs (???), then the unemployment numbers would go down (Profit). Just a few questions: Where does A get the funding? What does/should B do with the funding? Where is the positive correlation between directly funding the reduction a single data point and economic recovery?
©Southpark Studios
Ezra’s answers these questions in a follow-up article that includes a nifty graph, reference to a Yale professor, and not much else. Here, Ezra combines his “numbers” into graph form and backs them up by referring to Yale Professor Peter K. Schott’s NY Times blog post “America’s Hidden Austerity Program.”
The graphs and articles, by both Ezra and Schott, attempt to convey the notion that the Federal Government should be following the trends of previous recessions – creating more public-sector jobs that have traditionally been recession proof. It’s their opinion, so fine, but it still leaves me wondering why that is so important.
Basically their argument goes like this: more employed people = more household income = more consumption of goods and services = more tax revenue = improved economy. But in order to get to “more employed people” we need to find “more tax revenue” and to get “more tax revenue” we need “more employed people”… you see where this is going.
As much as I disagree with his premise, my primary frustration with Ezra is his lack of follow through. I love to disagree with people, I love to expand my world view through debate… but Ezra, you have robbed me of the ability to engage you intellectually by saying “Deus Ex Machina,” to the substance of your article’s point.
Any tips on where the funding should come from, where it should go, what its focus or purpose should be? Why the number of public-sector jobs must continually grow? Maybe an extrapolation of what types of public sector jobs were created in previous recession and how those jobs affected the recovery? Can you prove that the continual expansion of public-sector jobs from 1981-2008 was not, at least partially, responsible for the current budgetary problems facing local and state governments?
In response to these questions, Ezra says:
“As you can see, government employment tends to rise during recessions, helping to cushion their impact.”
Cushions. If the government would just cushion our economic fall from grace, by artificially reducing the unemployment figures, we’d have lower unemployment AND we’d be on track for recoveries like 1981, 1990, and 2001… which were going along great, until mean old 2008 came along and ruined everything.
Finally, the coup de grace, and the most loathsome facet of Ezra, and bloggers who follow this model… this brilliantly crafted zinger that most definitely correlates to the article and data:
“Note that a Republican was president after the 1981, 1990 and 2000 recessions. Public-sector austerity looks a lot better to conservatives when they’re out of power than when they’re in it.”
Look, at this point in political discourse, there is no need to pretend that Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals are actually united groups with focused messages and you can give your audience some credit at being intelligent enough to spot the blatant red herring, unless you work for Fox, CNN, or MSNBC (oh wait, Ezra contributes to MSNBC… never mind).
Par for the course – RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE DEY TUK R JOBS!!
In short, you suck Ezra. You’re just another example of someone using “Unlimited Growth,” as a sustainable economic theory to fiat their way to a solution.
Next up, (see also, below post) and reasons why our focus should be on increasing our small to medium sized manufacturing base, reducing inefficiencies in our government, and accepting that “you are not beautiful and unique snowflakes. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile.”
The Social Implications of 3-D Printing In A 3-D World.
Although the technology of 3-D printing has been around for about 30 years, it hasn’t really trickled down into the personal domain, until now. With the cost of such devices dipping below the $2,000 threshold, 3-D printers are finally becoming accessible commodities, and due to the fact that they can self-replicate (more on that later), their maintenance costs only involve the material they use, and the electricity that it takes to run them. If the role of computers, in both the Occupy-Wall-Street-Protests, and Arab Spring, is any indication of the impact that technology has in real world affairs, 3-D printing may very well serve as a “support mechanism,” towards the next big social change.
1. 3-D Printers Can Create Just About Anything. The beauty behind 3-D printing is the fact that it is only limited to the size of an object, and the CAD instructions that it receives. The time it takes to create these items certainly is an obstacle now; however, given the cumulative progression of technology, we should have rapid 3-D printers within a decade.
How does this factor into a political movement? The first, and most obvious answer is the decrease in reliance on other countries, and other states. Every citizen could, in essence, manufacture common household tools, dishware, furniture, and so on. This decrease in imported goods essentially untangles countries from the entrapment that is inherent in trade treaties, and allows for smaller forms of government to more easily break away from their state and federal counterparts. Additionally, large printers could support a community’s entire infrastructure, without reliance on the manufacturing capabilities of federal entities.
2. 3-D Printing Is Green. 3-D Printing is about as environmentally friendly as it gets, when living in an industrialized world. All goods are produced locally, eliminating the pollution caused by ships, trucks, and trains, that deliver products to a consumer; and because the product is created where it will be consumed, there is no waste from packaging, public-facing-stores, or warehouses, that are needed to maintain today’s production supply chain. Should a part on the printer break, a person would only have to grab a replacement part that was printed before the damage occurred, or go to his neighbor for a loaned part. Furthermore, 3-D printers allow a user to “re-melt,” items, to be used again, thus creating a closed circuit recycling program. In essence, each user could know that a unit of plastic or metal would last him, and his family, for years to come.
3. 3-D Printing Cuts Out Middle-Men, And Promotes A More Capitalistic Playing Field. 3-D Printing allows inventors and innovators to market their ideas directly to consumers. CAD files could be limited in their amount of uses before becoming dormant and unusable. A virtual marketplace would spring-up (ala iTunes), where users would receive free “base products,” such as utensils, tools, and containers, but would pay for premium CAD’s such as chairs, toilets, and tables. Designers would be in high demand for mass consumption, and open-source groups would cater to more niche users; start-ups would be just as competitive as established corporations, because of the ability for everyone to sell their wares in a common digital market.
Of course, 3-D Printing will, invariably, lead to this:
Have anything to add, or just want to shoot down observations? Sound off in the comments below.
