eightyone

Speaking from a lot of experience, they're often treated as such.

Education is controlled by corporate interest and always will be. In fact the education system was founded by wealthy industrialists so they could churn out great factory workers. To learn more about this read Seth Godin's Linchpin. It's not profitable to have a smart populous.

George Carlin sums it up here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg

Read some of the other comments here that dissect how these numbers are purposely misleading. That's his point.

I have to say in light of all this PRISM stuff, iWatch takes on a whole new meaning for me.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy82ntr8HYI

I couldn't agree more. BART is way better at PR than the unions and have littered the media with facts to fit their narrative.

Snowden is privacy conscious. I'm sure after seeing all the information regarding PRISM and other NSA spying initiatives, he wasn't too thrilled to make a Facebook profile and show off pictures of him drinking beers with his buddies and what not, haha. He's probably tried to keep as minimal a web shadow as possible.

Greenwald has written for years about abusive government by both the Republicans and Democrats. He was the best person to pick, in my opinion. Lest us not forget that the Washington Post sat on the documents. So perhaps Snowden did contact other journalists and they weren't interested or just strung him along.

Absolutely. Glenn Greenwald is attacked from both the right and left constantly. The Republicans call him a socialist because he's spoken at the Socialism Conference a few times and because he was critical of the Bush administration. Democrats call him a libertarian because he's associated with the Cato Institute and has been critical of the Obama administration. Greenwald has written a really good paper on Portugal and drug decriminalization. [1] I'm assuming it's published by Cato because of the prominence it has on their website.[2], [3] are videos of Glenn Greenwald speaking at Cato conferences. [4] is a video of him doing an interview with Reason.

[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminal...

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPok-FIKGgc

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PabkB4RnGJQ

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuvXdqKM0M

Here's some of his articles criticizing the use of the obama administration, use of drones, etc.

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/obama-wa...

- http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/americas_drone_sickness/

- http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/obamas_dismal_civil_libertie...

- Here's a speech of him criticizing Obama's awful civil liberties record http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rN5Nl...

Without a doubt the Guardian is taking a specific approach to leaking the documents, but I think a big part of it is that they have a lot to process. That's something that Greenwald has continually said on his Twitter feed. I guess what made me so angry about your comment is that it's often used as a smear against Greenwald. Greenwald doesn't prescribe to the left/right paradigm. He is both vilified and exemplified by both the left and right wing media all the time.

You obviously aren't familiar with Glenn Greenwald. He's been extremely critical of the Obama administration on a variety of issues. What your claiming makes zero sense. There is a reason why Edward Snowden sought out Greenwald.

Do you have a screenshot? Looks like it has been deleted.

Edit: Oops. Never mind, you meant a user on Motorola's website. Please disregard this comment everyone.

> "This particular local news has a pretty good track record for being factual and "uninterested" (an odd word to use)."

The news organization didn't even bother to cite their source. We don't know where they're getting their information from. Seeing a slide doesn't tell us anything. They could be reporting the misleading information that the comment I linked to you goes through. Or information given to them from management over at BART. Especially when there's conflicting information, it makes no sense to trust one side over another. Especially when it's management vs. labor because both sides want to appear as best as they can to the general public.

I appreciate the graphic, but it seems like there's a lot of conflicting information being handed around. I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to believe. I'd love to see an uninterested 3rd party gather and verify the facts and what not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5975252

"Did you know that there are currently 3,459 BART retirees, and that the average pension payment per retiree/beneficiary is only $21,049?"

http://www.bartunion.org/

I shouldn't have to Google it myself, you're making the claims. You can't just drop a whole bunch of numbers in a thread, present them as facts, and not cite any sources whatsoever. It does no one who is trying to learn about the subject matter any favors and isn't constructive at all.

Please stop throwing around numbers without citing them. It's not helpful at all. Also, I don't think paid overtime should be considered controversial.

May I get a source for that?

CBS is reporting they were seeking a 15% raise over three years.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/bart-workers-off...

Maybe this is why Greewald tweeted this earlier:

"NOTE: Snowden's leak is basically done. It's newspapers - not Snowden - deciding what gets disclosed and in what sequence."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351730381478821888

"Facebook has value, but no matter what your privacy settings are set to, no matter what you delete, always assume that anything you write or do on Facebook - in any context - will be embarrassingly public. 1) Because it will and 2) because it just makes life easier."

The problem here is that I do consider everything I do on the Internet to be public, but most average people don't. This is why I don't have a Facebook, which admittedly is probably a big killer for my social life in my age group being a late teenager. People in their late teens/early twenties are reckless when it comes to the Internet and I simply can't risk being associated with any of that.

I think you've misunderstood my comment. The angle bracket part was me quoting the parent comment. I'm telling him that it's bullshit to try and draw some sort of conclusion between LSD and schizophrenia simply because schizophrenia medication dampers the effects of LSD because all sorts of medications damper the effects of LSD. I probably should have used quotes, my bad. I'm just so used to using the angle bracket to signify a quotation.

> "There are so many cases of serious mental problems including permanent insanity caused by psychadelics."

> "And of course there are also the thousands of people that are not exactly insane but have their brains pretty much fried and are just not very good for anything useful anymore."

> "To mention one of the more recent fruits of psychedelics -- the guy that shot that US congresswoman in the head fried his brain on mushrooms."

Don't make outlandish claims if you're not going to bother to cite your sources. Also, even if what your claiming regarding the Arizona shooter is true, I have a mustache, does that mean I'm going to commit genocide?

> Haloperidol and olanzapine, two common prescriptions for schizophrenia, have been demonstrated to reduce the effects of LSD.

That is such a bullshit statement. A wide array of pharmaceuticals reduce the effects of LSD as well as other drugs for that matter.

> OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive

LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.

It's not a laugh track, it's an actual audience. He's speaking at the Socialism 2013 conference. He originally planned to be there but was unable to make it due to all the stuff that's gone down these last few weeks.

Ruby on Rails stopped supporting 1.8.x after Rails 3.2.

It's worth mentioning that Rand Paul isn't a member of Wyden's bipartisan group of 26 senators.

Seriously. Or call it: Sell everything and then buy it back again. This guy sounds like he's trying to impress people. "Look how Zen I am, you guys." He quotes Tyler Durden and then goes directly against that quote. Tyler Durden didn't say sell all your stuff and then go buy new stuff so you can finally start to be anti-consumerism and minimalistic. The most anti-consumeristic thing he could have done was pay for the truck and not expel resources so he could buy new things. It's like people who wake up and say, "I want to start buying ethical clothing" and then they go throw out their entire wardrobe to buy new clothes. The most ethical clothes are the clothes you have on right now.